www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Archeologist unearths biblical controversy

No my friend, I never said, boldy or otherwise, that a literal interpretation must be had, I merely said that I am a literalist.

As to defining the "evening and morning" I suppose that God must have known what the evening and morning were even before He put the sun, moon, and stars in place. I assume the first three days were govened by what God knew were going to be measured as "days" starting on the fourth day.

To say "I suppose" is to admit speculation. The same goes for "God must have known" and "I assume." Are literal interpretations based on speculation?

BTW, what is the significance of seven days? Why seven?

I see this again in the number of pairs of clean animals that Noah takes into the ark (Gen 7:3) along with one pair of unclean animals. Yet this story befuddles me too since only verses earlier we hear that Noah only takes in one pair (Gen 6:20) of every animal. How can a literal interpretation solve this riddle?

Regarding biblical authority, I found this on your church website:

"Biblical authority. (2 Peter chapter 1, verse 21) For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. We believe that the Bible is the absolute authority in all matters of faith, practice, history, science, etc. No council or ruling of man can supersede it."

But what would a literalist interpretation make of the council(s) mentioned in Acts 15. This was at a time when there was no New Testament.

And if the Bible, which includes the New Testament, is the authority and not a council or ruling of man, then where in the Bible can I read a list of what books must be accepted in the New Testament? I can't find one. How do you know which books belong there? Maybe the books of the New Testament were merely writings or rulings by men? Please explain. Everyone I ask cannot answer - using the Bible - how we know which books belong there in the New Testament. How can I apply a literalist interpretation to answer my question?

Thank you, my friend. We agree on one thing; we are Irish, no? Is that you (Roger) in the middle of the Parrow Family picture at the christ4kildare website? You all a handsome family. God bless you all.

Joe

I have always had fun believing (and without insisting) that, at the time of creation, the Lord knew there would be skeptics who would not believe unless they could understand. So he purposely engaged in a bit of Divine confusion regarding creation to �destroy the wisdom of the wise and thwart the cleverness of the cleaver�.

---

Joe,

Roger has already stated that he is not here to engage in apologetics. Please respect this.

Admin

Administrator,

Stating that one is a literalist IS a form of apologetics. Any time we give an explanation for why or what we believe, it is a form of apologetics. I know that he may not want to engage in "polemics," but this is entirely different from simply explaining oneself. Berean states that he is a literalist. I want to know what that means and how such an approach addresses riddles implied in the Bible. I might state that I am "orthodox," but if everything I write is devoid of what is generally considered orthodox, then I better have an explanation. Literalism is similar to the problem of trying to pull oneself up with one's own bootstraps. I tried applying literalism to the book of Genesis (Chapter 1) and the same with trying to determine what books belong in the New Testament if there was no such list in the Bible. Berean states he is a literalist. I believe that of all people, he might be able to solve the two problems I list. You see, one of the extreme positions being taken today in Old Testament research is doubting the entire historicity of the Bible stories that happened before the Exile. My questions above have stumped many of my friends and colleagues. I am willing to listen to anyone holding a certain methodology that can answer them.

Joe

Joe,

This is a Byzantine Catholic forum. I apologise if I went too far by stating that I am a literalist. I only meant to express where I am coming from when I made my statement about the archeological finds. We could get involved in a lenghty apologetic debate, but your forum is not the place for a Baptist to come and defend his views.

Sadly, I am not Irish, but American. My wife is of Irish ancestry.

I didn't suggest you went too far. I just want to know how the literalist interpretation can answer my questions. This is not polemics. You stated something and I now have a question. These things happen on forums. The Baptists usually kick me off their forums when I ask the same questions.

Joe

Perhaps I should just admit that I don't have a satisfactory answer to your questions Joe and leave it at that.

A brother from Abba Poemen's neighborhood left to go to another country one day. There he met an anchorite. The latter was very charitable and many came to see him. The brother told him about Abba Poemen. When he heard of his virtue, the anchorite wanted to see him. Some times afterwards when the brother had returned to Egypt the anchorite went there to see the brother who had formerly paid him a visit. He had told him where he lived.
When he saw him, the brother was astonished and very pleased. The anchorite said to him, "Please, will you be so kind as to take me to Abba Poemen?" So he brought him to the old man and presented him, saying, "This is a great man, full of charity, who is held in high estimation in his district. I have spoken to him about you, and he has come because he wants to see you." So Abba Poemen received him with joy. They greeted one another and sat down.

The visitor began to speak of the Scriptures, of spiritual and of heavenly things. But Abba Poemen turned his face away and answered nothing. Seeing that he did not speak to him, the other went away deeply grieved and said to the brother who had brought him, "I have made this long journey in vain. For I have come to see the old man, and he does not wish to speak to me."

Then the brother went inside to Abba Poemen and said to him, "Abba, this great man who has so great a reputation in his own country has come here because of you. Why did you not speak to him?" The old man said, "He is great and speaks of heavenly things and I am lowly and speak of earthly things. If he had spoken of the passions of the soul, I should have replied, but he speaks to me of spiritual things and I know nothing about that."

Then the brother came outside and said to the visitor, "The old man does not readily speak of the Scriptures, but if anyone consults him about the passions of the soul, he replies." Filled with compunction, the visitor returned to the old man and said to him, "What should I do, Abba, for the passions of the soul master me?"

The old man turned towards him and replied joyfully, "This time, you come as you should. Now open your mouth concerning this and I will fill it with good things." Greatly edified, the other said to him, "Truly, this is the right way!"

He returned to his own country giving thanks to God that he had been counted worthy to meet so great a saint.

"The Desert Christian," by Benedicta Ward, (New York: MacMillan, 1975), p. 167


The best answer is OFTEN silence...humility is a SURE sign of God's grace and presence!

Your brother in Christ,
+Fr. Gregory

Dear Friends,

I too am not here to engage in polemics.

Most of the time . . .

Alex

In defense of Berean: I hold to a literal Adam and Eve, because St. Paul teaches in Romans that it was by Man that sin entered into the world, and that by Man (the Godman)that redemption. since there is only one Redeemer, following the logic, there was but one paradigm for sinners.yes, Adam and Eve had intercourse and begat a whole slew of kids. Scripture does not give us a precise figure of how many children and the order in which they were born, but only those of whom that God the Holy Spirit has chosen to convey a message.Moses, under the superintendency of the Holy Spirit compiled accounts that were germane to his essential authorship of Torah.later editors addd the glosses that have caused such consternation of Liberals, the glosses were editorial clarifications for later readers (such as "far as Dan", when Dan had not settled in the area mentioned in Genesis, it is but a clarification).
If Berean wants to hold to a literal six day (of twenty four hours apiece)Creation, then fine. our mutual OT Intro prof has made a strong case for such. it could be as in Psalm 91:4 "a thousand years is as a day" type scenario for each of the days of Creation. but as ByzTenn has pointed out, in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. A day is a period, so because the sun was not created until a couple of "days" later, does not impugn the testimony of Scripture. the Liberals are still wallowing in nineteenth century science. Twentieth century science is holding that light preceded the creation of stars, after all light is energy, thus energy came first, go figure.
The problem is not Berean's opinions,the problem is Liberal critical "scholarship" that degrades the Scripture, and denies Divine authorship, holding the Bible to be a Man made collection of myths and theological agendas.
I am not a Baptist, but an Eastern Catholic so Orthodox, that if I was any more orthodox I'd be wearing side curls (whoops, wrong orthodox). Welcome, Roger, you are our brother in Christ, even if we are not sharing the same room.
Much Love,
Jonn

Dear John,

I once came across a fascinating anthropological article that affirmed that we are ALL descended from ONE set of original parents.

There was a lot of DNA "mumbo-jumbo" but it was interesting that serious scientists were saying this.

I think science will continue to surprise us in future.

We often want to do more debunking than even agnostic science does - and then that same science shows us that we should perhaps slow down a bit!

Alex

Alex,
how could that have slipped my mind? I saw a related article in a secular magazine, and when I mentioned the one pair of parents to a group of Liberal wannabees. do you remember the scene in Jurassic Park where computer nerd person tried to play fetch with a dinosaur? pretty much same reaction from these folks as the dinosaur gave.
Much Love,
Jonn

oh, they did not stick out their ears, spit at me, and attack me. they just had the same idiotic blank look.
Much Love,
Jonn

I apologize to Berean for putting him on the spot. I didn't want him to think that I was trying to engage in polemics for mere polemics sake.

If Berean wants to hold to a literalist view on the days of Creation, then fine. No matther how God created the world, we probably agree in that the world was created by God. We probably agree on other matters like the distinction between Creator and Creation as being two separate and distinct realities. But these are matters we can always pick up a discussion later.

But Berean does submit to a literalist interpretation of the days of Creation and has stated so. My interest in this method or approach has only increased lately in my own reflection on the Holy Scripture. I agree with those who suggest that silence is the best response. There really are no words that can describe what God has already done. Not even the 151 Psalms can even come close in describing God's goodness.

My questioning of Berean is not inspired by "liberal" scholarship as some may imply, but one of curiosity spurred on not by my own beliefs or biases, but by those who also hold on to Holy Writ as dear. Let me explain.

I have had several discussions with Baptists regarding the 4th day of creation and how it was decided which books would be incorporated in the New Testament. The discussion would go fine until I realize that my questions were never answered. I often wondered why. I was told that the Bible was the supreme authority, that no man or council of men held sway over it, and that the Bible can interpret itself. Well, OK. So I ask how the Bible can tell me which books belong in the New Testament if there is not a single list of them anywhere to be found.? Table of Contents came later, but where in the Scripture text itself does it state with supreme authority that such and such book is Scripture? When I ask for this authoritative list, I get no answer. Instead, I am accused of trying to confuse the real issue or that my conversationalist refuses to give an answer. What is one to conclude?

As for literalism, I find it failing to explain why those entities created to "govern the day" were created on the fourth day! What exactly governed the days prior to their creation? Was the concept of "day" superimposed on the reality of Creation as some sort of schema reflecting another reality? The number seven (7) is an interesting number. It shows up in so many other places, often parallel to similar accounts giving different numbers (i.e., pairs of animals going into Noah's ark).

I do believe that Creation was created, literally, but have a difficult time accepting a literal seven day time of creation. Compare the Creation story of Genesis 1 with second Creation story of Genesis 2. Genesis 1 states that man was created, male and female, last. Yet, Genesis 2 states that man was created BEFORE the animals and plants, then woman was created last! Genesis 1 states that prior to Creation, there was a formless void, but Genesis 2 states that man was created out of the earth. If both stories are literally true, then how does one reconcile radically different explanations for God's act of creation? Either man was created first or he was created last; either the primoral matter was a formless void or it was dirt. See my dilemma?

I already have several conclusions on hand that I can share what is going on here in the Scriptures, but I leave it to anyone to share with me the benefits of a literal interpretation in lieu of the conflicts I just stated.

Again, I apologize to Berean (Pastor Roger?). But his earlier statement hit me like a bolt of ligtening. I heard this one before and I just want to hear how it plays out on my two questions, but most importantly regarding my interest in that authoritative list of books that belong in the New Testament. I can't seem to find it. If the Bible doesn't give an authoritative list, then can I accept it being the supreme authority?

Joe

Joe,

Do you realize that at the same time you are apologizing for putting Pastor Roger on the spot you are actively engaging in apologetics with your apologetic challenges? Since Roger has already indicated that he is not here to actively engage in apologetics, how about letting the matter drop? I recommend that you see references in his posts as a statement of the position he holds and not as a challenge to engage in apologetic discussions. Thanks!

Admin