Discussion in 'Abrahamic Religions' started by Aussie Thoughts, Nov 17, 2015.
Funny stuff! I told you blokes there was something for everyone.
I know what you mean.
Actually I do rather like the idea that Scripture does not contradict science, but that does not mean it is science, or even depends on science for its authority or authenticity.
I actually delight in this kind of wordplay that suggests Scripture is far more 'mystical' than might at first appear.
So I have no contention with the tsela/tsala thesis ... other than it pre-supposes an error, where no suggestion of any error actually exists. The written text comes from oral tradition, and I doubt that any oracle was talking about genetic mutation! One could equally suggest that God made dna a helix, to point to a correspondence between it and Adam's rib!
So it's a 'what if' kinda curio.
Of course, I do the same thing when I marvel at the genius of the Fathers who stoutly resisted Arianism, even though they had no real idea of how much Arianism would undo the nascent understandings of the human person – bearing in mind that the integrity and importance of the idea of 'the person' is totally Christian idea!
(If Arius is right, then any idea of spirituality or mysticism is out of the question. Same with 2nd century gnosticism. I'm always gobsmacked that no-one notices this.)
I marvel at the Hebrew scholars who translated their Sacra Doctrina into Greek and specifically chose the Greek word for 'virgin' rather than 'young lady' or 'maiden' when translating Isaiah, even though they were writing centuries before Christ and the declaration of the Virgin Birth.
Or the fabulous appearance of three angels to Abraham at Mamre, an obvious, some might say, presentment of the Blessed Trinity in the Hebrew text ... Rublev's icon, perhaps one of the most famous icons in Christendom, was inspired by the event.
And the statements on Christology from the Council of Chalcedon astound me time and time again, in that they successfully answer issues that never raised their heads until centuries, sometimes millennia, after the event. It's as though the Holy Spirit was guiding the hand of the scribe...
But one cannot definitively say that such is the case ...
Actually, I can agree with you on most of that. Personally I don't think there's any error in translation. I just think that it's entirely possible that 'rib' is perhaps and analogy and does indeed refer to DNA rather than the physical taking of Adam's rib, but as you say...
...but I can believe it in my heart.
But I don't see that it would add anything. Why would the ancient people use "curve", a shape that doesn't actually form a DNA strand, that would be meaningless to them. The idea that some sort of essence of the flesh had the shape of the curve makes no sense while the symbolism of the rib taken from the actual flesh makes sense on so many more levels. We could even keep the logic of the DNA being in the actual marrow of the bone to a sort of keep scripture compatible, while not necessarily the same as, modern knowledge.
The notion of the mistranslation just confuses everything and adds nothing?
I very much agree. I think we were posting at the same time with more or less the same thought.
OK let's give it a g
But now we give up on the whole curve notion and say woman was a clone that was genetically modified?
OK let's give it a go.... The word was rib, wouldn't G!d use the word for curve? Are we going to take every word and look at its root instead of what was said?
No, the helix curve aspect is still there we're just saying that the word 'rib' doesn't necessarily amount to a mistranslation as the marrow of the rib may have been the source of the DNA.
No, it's not like that. It's just that translating old Hebrew into English is rather tricky and things can get muddled. Sometimes it's helpful to go back to the root to clarify. My dad did that whenever something seemed out of place or contradictory and 9 times out of 10 that would clear it up. The Strong's Concordance is a tremendous help in that regard.
outside of this forum, I've never met a Christian who saw anything in Genesis as metaphor. I've met people who have degrees in OT studies who read it literally and believe it to be focused better in that way
I've always found it interesting how people can dismiss a miracle in that something that is revealed at one time, and understood to mean 1 accurate detail, can later be interpreted a different way and still maintain its validity. Just because they didn't grasp the whole meaning for thousands of years doesn't mean there isn't more truth to God's words than was previously thought. And that the fact that both of these interpretations were accurate is incredible, not definitively false.
I'm saying that we >can< draw conclusions about the DNA from the rib if we want to. I don't see any need for that but I know that other people find meaning in that. What I was saying is that if we sticking to the translation being 'rib' we don't actually lose any meaning on any level that we have discussed. This whole reasoning was to underpin my initial question, what does 'curve' add?
The bain of being in the US with our vocal evanglists...
Loyola university... Jesuits teach...all metaphor, new thought teaches, all metaphor, Jews, Christians around the globe
... Not all...but many of us.
Same here. The majority of our churches are non-denominational in this region and are of European origin. No US Evangelical influence at all.
This is really odd, as the Catholic Church, for example, regards the creation account as metaphor. The Orthodox hold the same views, I think, as do the Anglican and most European Christianity. In fact as far as I'm aware, 'Creationism' in its various guises, Biblical inerrancy, etc. etc., is a largely a modern and generally American phenomenon. It holds no currency here. Certainly literalism doesn't! Has Post-Modernism and Semiotics not reached your shores? You seem to be about 150 years behind Europe ...
Or put another way ... who is teaching the Creation as a literal account?
You know what a stranglehold Christian extremism has in this country.
In the US we not only have a museum to prove a short earth and literal creation that gets millions of visitors... But many if not most Methodist, Baptist, AME, Catholics... It is the common upringing through confirmation and in religious schools...not until SOME uni theology courses do you learn different.
Sorry Wil ... but if 'most Catholics' are teaching short earth and literal creation, then they are at odds or ignorant of Church doctrine. So again, it's an American problem, not a problem of Catholicism per se. I've never met an American theologian who believes or teaches such stuff. Frank Sheed's books on theology are global textbooks, and they don't propose it. The Catechism of the Catholic Church doesn't. You won't find a Catholic textbook with the Imprimatur that does ... so you may believe it, but until I see evidence to the contrary, I'll take it with a pinch of salt!
Does seem a bit odd I suppose, but my family was among the 1st to immigrate from Germany in the late 1600's. Long before the Catholic invasion. My granddad always told us our religious beliefs came over with us. I suspect some Aboriginal influence myself, as their account of creation is similar to ours in this region. We're far from literalist though. At least not the variety associated with the American south. My dad used to say, "You can make a literal interpretation of scriptue, but not literally as written."
unfortunately that's one of the biggest issues I see with the Bible as a "God Given" source. If it says 1 thing literally, how can one be sure that it is not meant to be taken that way. Obviously it just didn't work for me, until I started reading it as a 3rd person's story that someone recorded to the best of their ability, with a few gems thrown in over time.. IMO of course
I didn't say theologians teach this stuff...if is what is taught in the elementary levels of the religion...and most people don't go beyond that.... When a Jesuit priest walks into a freshman class at Loyola and begins removing his outer garments and priestly trappings to expose jeans and a flannel shirt and suspenders.... And then insure the kids are sitting down prior to telling them that Genesis and revelation are metaphor... A good share of them freak...as it is something theyve never heard of aa pulpit koo r catechism
Separate names with a comma.