To me this discussion between people of different religious branches is quite funny. What never ceases to amaze me however is the double standards applied when it comes to interpreting the Bible. I know that Protestants and Catholics have different versions of this book. However, when i choose to criticize the Bible I often get the answer from people more religious than myself that one shouldn't interpret everything literally. The second after saying this however, they start qouting the Bible and imply that that very section should be interpreted literally. I am sorry for not having any exact references that might have helped out the answers, but in general I have a hard time buying a lot of the stories offered in the Old Testament, like the description of how God created the earth. If there are passages in the Bible that are less important than others, how do you go about choosing those sections, and does this not bother you since Christianity is based on the whole book, not just carefully selected sections? It would be nice to have some of you believers out there respond to this.

To me the Bible is nothing more than a collection of man-made moral codes, hear-saying, and old stories all grouped into one book. I mean no offense here, I think that each person has the right to believe in whatever makes him/her happy, but I myself have a hard time swallowing it. For Instance, what do you have to say about darwinism? Has Man originated from the ocean via the apes? This should get you going, I hope.

Live Long and Prosper.

-- Magnus Wahlkvist (magnus@sparta.lu.se), August 17, 1999

Answers

Magnus - Your post I feel shows you have no faith in Jesus Christ as He was a of the House Of David writer of Psalms. So many prophets seers and others with a gift from and through God The Father to bring His people back to the fold is what the bible is about.

As to Darwinism we went threoug all that many long weeks ago. Perhaps you can scroll the list of questions. +Peace+

-- jean bouchardRC (jeanb@cwk.imag.net), August 18, 1999.

I'll give you a proper answer when I have time. Right now I am too tired and too busy moving home to give you the detailed answer that this question deserves. The only way to shoehorn God into Darwinism is to redefine God as an interventionist as opposed to a creator. There is no Biblical evidence for this. God is described as having been in control from the very beginning; not as someone/something who intervened in a self-sustaining and completely random process (Darwinian evolution)and raised humanity to consciousness by a special act. You cannot successfully argue that God breathed a soul into the empty vessel that was created via evolution. Darwinian evolution is an essentially reductionist/materialist idea; we do not have souls as such, but rather ideas of souls/consciousness that originate from within our own minds and nowhere else. Everything that has evolved in the universe(including human consciousness) can be traced to a material source. Darwinian evolution challenges any attempt to define humanity in non-material terms, and that is why is presents problems for Christians(or anyone else who believes in a human "spirit").

In some respects I am more sympathetic to Christians who defend the literal interpretation of Genesis; at least they are presenting a coherent view of humanity (even though it is obvious that the universe is not 10'000 years old). Those that try to accomodate evolution into their faith are forced to explain away the reductionist/material threat that Darwinism presents to their cherished idea of human beings as unique created individuals with immortal souls. The reductionist aspects of Darwinism have not been invented by secular scientists hellbent on undermining the authority of the Church; they are the unavoidable implications of a theory that does not require a Creator.

I'd love to believe in the interventionist God; evolution and faith could live happily side by side then, but this is a fabrication. I can cope with fabrications, but they don't look good. The theories of Darwin have forced many people to re-evuluate their beliefs. One thing is certain though. If you "believe" in Darwinism then you have to change your concept of God and yourself. What worries me is that many Christians still think they can get away with believing two contradictory ideas. I know that I can't.

I'll expand this later

-- Matthew (mdpope@hotmail.com), August 18, 1999.

Mathew - Take note of the first five words of the Torah. I sums it up for this Catholic.

-- jean bouchardRC, (jeanb@cwk.imag.net), August 19, 1999.

Of course, as I pointed out in another thread, John Paul II has rejected Darwinism as compatible with Catholic teaching. And the scientific evidence sends Darwinism down in flames as well; it has been chopped off at the neck (i.e. there's no evidence for it) but the body keeps writhing around giving the illusion of continuing health. Other theories of evolution ("punctuated equilibrium" for example) could be harmonious with Catholic teaching. A literal interpretation of the first chapters of Genesis, on the other hand, does violence both to the biblical text and to the scientific record.

-- David Palm (djpalm64@yahoo.com), August 19, 1999.

Whatever - I can't think straight at the moment, and shouldn't have posted. I have much more important things worry about - life getting my life back on track.

-- Matthew (mdpope@hotmail.com), August 19, 1999.

I understand.

God bless,

-- David Palm (djpalm64@yahoo.com), August 19, 1999.

i highly reccommend reading the encyclical HUMANI GENERIS of pope Pius XII. it may enlighten the point under discussion.

enrique

-- enrique ortiz (eaortiz2@yahoo.com), August 22, 1999.

Dear Magnus, I too, have read the bible many times and have been confused by some things in it. In fact, I have gotten different interpretations at different times in my life--maybe because I was looking to fit the bible to my lifestyle at the moment. Now, past 45, my ideas are this. If I had a medical problem, I would look it up in a medical book(which I may or may not understand) and I would look up my problem on the internet too. In the end, I would have to consult a doctor who is specially trained in illnesses for his diagnosis. If I didn't like it, I could get a second opinion. If I needed surgery, I would see a surgeon. If I needed legal help, I would go to a lawyer. Why is it, that so many untrained people, attempt to discover the true meaning of the bible on their own? They have no idea of the history of the times when the bible was written or the customs practiced. They have little knowledge of the authors or their views. They know little of the Jewish faith practiced at the time. A lot was changed every time the bible was translated. Latin doesn't translate perfectly into English. If you have an illness, consult a doctor. If you have a spiritual conflict, consult a spiritual counselor. There is a saying that says something like- a lawyer who represents himself has a fool for a client. The same is true for those who attempt to just read the bible as a book without knowing the background it comes from. Ellen

-- Ellen K. Hornby (dkh@canada.com), August 24, 1999.

Ellen - You are gaining a new fan in this man with the input. True many are not read in the historical aspects cultures in faith. The Asian Synod of Bishops recently have come to realize in part the importance of this. It is the foremost challenge for the Church.

The fundmendalist weems to have a severe denial of this and their history seemingly starts somewhere around 1400. +Peace+

-- jean bouchardRC (jeanb@cwk.imag.net), August 24, 1999.

Magnus, I am sure you understand that your new TV-set needs fine- tuning before it can give you a clear picture. Don't you read through the instruction manual, fine-tune your set, and then enjoy watching TV? What makes you think man works differently. We need a lot of fine- tuning too, before we can receive our creator God's signals. The Christians call their instruction manual Bible.

-- luis gasser (l_gasser@hotmail.com), August 25, 1999.

To All:

Again I am late coming into the conversation :o( but for what it is worth. Since Darwin spun his delusion upon mankind not a single shred of uncontested evidence exists to support his origin of species. In fact the evidence being gathered contradicts his silly claims.

I am eager to know why the book of Genesis cannot be taken literally. I believe at every possible point the whole of the Holy Scriptures should be taken as literal as possible. I do not have a single verse that comes to my mind that I would not take literal. The only exception, and I say that with great hesitation, might be the book of Revelation, simply because I believe a lot of what Peter was saying was meant to be symbolic. Even then I believe he wrote down exactly what he was seeing in his vision.

David, I am still trying to understand what you meant in your post:

"A literal interpretation of the first chapters of Genesis, on the other hand, does violence both to the biblical text and to the scientific record." ?????????

Sincerely,

-- Barry Hanson (obci2000@yahoo.com), November 19, 1999.

Barry,

I'll give you one example. Add up all the activity that is said to take place in the sixth "day" of creation. God created all the animals, God created man and placed him in the Garden and commissioned him to tend it, God commissioned the man to name all the animals (and the clear implication here is that he was to name each and every individual animal, not that he could just wave his hand at a huge group of similar beasts and say "monkey"), the man named all the animals but found no suitable helper--the two-fold implication here is that he came to know the animals well enough to know that they were not suitable companions and also that he had time to become lonely, then God created the woman and the man exclaims "this at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh!"

No matter how you slice it, apart from some kind of special pleading, that is not a mere twenty four hours worth of activity. So one sees that the days are not meant to be taken literally from clues right in the text.

-- David Palm (djpalm64@yahoo.com), November 22, 1999.

It's good to know that I'm not the only one with this view. I personally didn't even know that Jesus was a REAL man until I was in grade 9, and I had been a DEEPLY religious child (if there is such a thing). I always thought the bible was a big, important, story book which at the end of each story had a moral, like all the other fables I had read. When I found out that there had actually been a man named Jesus, I had a religious crisis. What if everything else was true, I wondered? Anyway, to make a long story short I decided to find out what I valued and believed. Because other people's views were different, mine were just the same; different - not better, just different. In the end, I think that you'll learn when you die. What you learn, you can only know when you're dead, no one can teach it to you. Live long and Prosper, M.E.

-- M.E. (kami2000@hotmail.com), April 11, 2000.

M.E.'s words: "In the end, I think that you'll learn when you die. What you learn, you can only know when you're dead, no one can teach it to you. Live long and Prosper, M.E."

Dear M.E.,
Please join us in hoping to learn, when we die, the joys of heaven.
But "live long and prosper?" It would be better if we were content to "live short" and "be poor (at least in spirit)," resembling our Savior on both counts.
May Jesus guide you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jgecik@desc.dla.mil), April 11, 2000.

Dear Magnus,

It may help you to understand what the bible really is. For that, the first logical step - nevermind our protestant brother`s strange beliefs-, is to look at what the book says of itself. And all it says is that the Bible is ONLY "useful to teach, correct... ". Nothing more. No one will find a quote that says anything about the Bible proclaiming any higher authority than that of its "usefulness". The own Sacred Book, itself, doesn`t say anything more. It is men words (protestants) who say the Bible IS the authority. Nowhere does the Bible say such thing....

So, ¿What do we do about this?..well, not a difficult issue, the Bible DOES tell very clearly WHO has the last word about how interpreting its content:

Remember that Jesus NEVER mentioned anything about a New Testament being written, never talked about it, neither did he give any hint at all about it.Jesus used scripture ONLY as a tool. Obviously, less did the Apostles....

Jesus didn`t write just one letter,... he did`t come to earth for that.

He came to institute HIS - not "a"- Church... "I will build MY Church... and the gates of hell will NEVER prevail against It". No men will build it, "I will [do so]..". Jesus is the Way, the Life and the TRUTH. The devil is the LIAR. So, LIE - sin surely- will never enter Jesus Church, unless Christ was mistaken...and the Demon won.

The Bible even makes things much clearer. Apart from stating that Scripture is ONLY "useful to teach, correct etc..", it gives you a very good advice, better said, a commandment:

"NO PROPHECY OF SCRIPTURE IS OF PRIVATE INTERPRETATION" (2 Pet 1:20 ). [Prophecy= God`s words]

Moreover, it doesn`t leave the subject there. But the Bible comes back again telling where to look for answers:

"The CHURCH.., which is the PILLAR and GROUND of the TRUTH" (1 Tim 3:15).

So, nevermind whatever prejudices there are out there. But if you take an intelectually honest interpretation of these clear passages you will come to a sound conclusion.

The Bible is ONLY "useful", as a tool. And you are not to interpret it privately. The CHURCH is the "PILLAR and GROUND of the Truth". Jesus will not lie.

So, be sound and follow the bible "Take them to the CHURCH".

Yeah,... one point missing: The Bible doesn`t talk about "some" churches or "their churches", neither did Jesus say "Go and institute A church in my name",.. nothing like it. He said "MY Church",so it can only be one...

The Bible only talks about ONE church, and very visible.

So, if you are still interested in the Bible, just follow first its own counsels, and approach The Church.

Just like anyone sound, will never substitute the book for the University and its teachers.

¿Which one?. If you are intelectually honest you will come - after a little search- to just two possible options:

The Catholic Church. The Eastern-Ortodox Church.

Otherwise, Jesus made a mistake...

Your final option will take you some more reading. In Christ,

Manuel.

May a recommend you to start with the beginning, something that protestants are not able to hide anymore since the coming of the Internet. Get to Google, and make a search with this words "Apostolic Fathers of the Church"... and start reading them......you will be surprised.

-- Manuel. (soespanholo@yahoo.com.br), December 13, 2002.

That was Great! Thank you Manuel. It got me thinking: God's Living written Word is so far above us (like the east is from the west). And if a puny Calculus book could outright baffle me without a teachers assistance, how much more the Word of God without the Church!

If Protestants think that reading the Bible is so easy (the written Word of God), then I would challenge them to sit down with a Calculus book (written by man) and try to figure it out. If they don't have a teacher (who knows the real answeres), all they will come up with is their own interpretation of what it means. If they agree that you need a Calculus teacher to teach Calc., then there's something funny about not needing the Church to explain God's Word.

In Christ.

-- Jake Huether (jake_huether@yahoo.com), December 13, 2002.