A Clip Involved an Ex-Mormon

How A Mormon Missionary Began to Doubt w/ Isaac Hess
Pints With Aquinas | 7 Dec. 2023
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FowwxB-9KzA

Hans Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

9:08 Am I to some Catholics what that Mormon was to Isaac Hess?

1) When I converted, I was a YEC, I had been told I didn't need to be, but I was obviously not told it was wrong either.
2) Later, in conversations, I heard things like St. Augustine not believing the Creation days were literally days, so one could extend them.
3) I then learned that his "deviation" if one likes from literality of days was shorter, not longer, and that from creation of Adam and Eve on, he follows standard models (varying but very related time spans) of Biblical chronology, City of God.
4) I am spreading that, and this may disturb people who grew up with or were invited with CCC § 283 ...

Del Sydebothom

@delsydebothom3544

It is more like his "deviation" from the literalistic reading does not directly involve the notion of time. That is, so long as we are restricting ourselves to the actual exegesis, each creative "day" is instantly contemporaneous with every moment of creation.

Hans Georg Lundahl

"no time" and "instant" and "contemporaneous" (with instantly) means "not even a second" and "with every moment of creation" would (if you find that phrase) be about the creation event, not about created time as a whole.

Del Sydebothom

@hglundahl Yes, it seems to be about created time as a whole. God, at this moment, is creating the heavens and the earth in six "days"--six broadly categorized instances of coordinated order. The picture articulated in "de genesi ad litteram" makes the days co-instant with creation at every moment of its existence, including this one. God, here and now, is actively creating the universe in six divisions of light from darkness, crowned with a seventh of rest.

Alonso B

@alonso19989

It's great that you're reading St. Augustine, however when it comes to the sciences and faith, you ought to not extract any scientific data from the Bible. The Bible narrates History, yes, but the Old Testament in particular was written by a Semitic culture that was heavily attached to romanticizing, metaphors, exaggeration, and numerology. The correct way to read this is taking into account this, and to read Scripture in light of science, not in opposition to it. The reason you're Christian isn't connected to that specific interpretation of Genesis, is it? You know Catholicism is true, therefore Scripture narrates history, therefore Genesis contains history there somewhere, we just have to try and get it. Again, get it in light of what we know of science, history, and Ancient Near Eastern culture. Which is what Augustine recommended as well, you may have also read from him that he regularly consulted with countless Rabbis and scholars when interpreting the Old.

I hope I helped somewhat. Peace be with you.

Hans Georg Lundahl

OK, @alonso19989, here is why I cannot return the peace to you:

"you ought to not extract any scientific data from the Bible."

That's:

• not in the Bible
• not in Tradition
• not in the undisputed Popes or their councils (disputed = after 1950'ish or so).

"The Bible narrates History, yes, but the Old Testament in particular was written by a Semitic culture that was heavily attached to romanticizing, metaphors, exaggeration, and numerology."

I don't think either Genesis 5 or Genesis 11 (the genealogy parts) could have their chronology explained away that way.

The genealogies are dry, they are not obvious or even comprehensible metaphors for sth else, they don't seem exaggerated, and the ages don't have numerological significance.

"The correct way to read this is taking into account this, and to read Scripture in light of science, not in opposition to it."

That evaluation of Science seems to make it a superdogma (as someone said about certain people's attitude to a supposed council).

The pretended science does not stand up to scrutiny as scientifically well proven, and does not shed much light on this scripture.

I mean of course, how the data are usually presented by Evolution believers.

"The reason you're Christian isn't connected to that specific interpretation of Genesis, is it?"

A straightforward acceptance of traditional narrative as at least roughly speaking historical is definitely part of my apologetic arsenal, applicable to Gospels, to Odyssey and Mahabharata, and to Genesis.

"You know Catholicism is true, therefore Scripture narrates history,"

I know Genesis was taken to narrate history, therefore it presumably does, until proven otherwise. That's not a conclusion of the faith as much as one of the prolegomena.

"therefore Genesis contains history there somewhere, we just have to try and get it."

Sorry, but I have more respect for the historicity of Ramayana, while I hold its theology to be erroneous and that of Bhagavadgita hardly even palatable, than you have for the narratives of our fathers in the faith.

"Again, get it in light of what we know of science, history, and Ancient Near Eastern culture."

Sh eeee sh ...
1) why do you put science before history?
2) why do you think we get history independently of narratives?
3) why do you think ANE is a kind of monolith allowing you to extrapolate from a Canaanean and a Babylonian on what Genesis means?

"Which is what Augustine recommended as well, you may have also read from him that he regularly consulted with countless Rabbis and scholars when interpreting the Old."

1) The rabbis were not trying to reconstruct the OT history in spite of their tradition, they were an independent branch of the OT tradition, unacceptable in theology at times, but pretty good as far as history is concerned;
2) "countless" is a qualifier I'd like to have your source in St. Augustine for.

Hans Georg Lundahl

@delsydebothom3544 "The picture articulated in "de genesi ad litteram" makes the days co-instant with creation at every moment of its existence, including this one. God, here and now, is actively creating the universe in six divisions of light from darkness, crowned with a seventh of rest."

Book, chapter ...?

I hope to look it up in a library, you know ...

Del Sydebothom

@hglundahl And I would have to dig it out from a tote currently in my (undersized) home. I studied that book relentlessly for the better part of 2014, so it has been a while. I will try to find it, though, so I can find the exact words St. Augustine used to carry his argument. Can you read Latin? That will make things simpler.

Hans Georg Lundahl

Possum, @delsydebothom3544.

Potius Thomam quam Augustinum, sed possum.

Alonso B

@hglundahl I guess I got off the wrong impression. My post was about recommendations regarding private exegesis, not at all about dogma.
Science and history can be wrong and have been wrong often, but they can help shed light onto the context.

The thing is we shouldn't presume to know with certainty, and demand others to believe with certainty, things that weren't defined by Council or Papal decree.

What the Church teaches about Scripture is that it's historical and is correct in what it asserts. Genesis has been hotly debated on what the author even meant to convey. By the first 5 verses you got half a dozen metaphors, and numbers in the first two chapters are ALL hinting at something deeper. The implication God is within time and has a voice and body should raise alarm bells to any literalist.

Adam existed, the Fall happened, etc. We can discuss this all day, but you did make clear you intend to insist that you can get scientific knowledge from Genesis. You also claim that's not in Tradition. That's not the case. Augustine expressed with confidence his opinion, but in that same book he wrote:

“we should not rush in headlong and so firmly take our stand on one side that, if further progress in the search of truth justly undermines this position, we too fall with it. That would be to battle not for the teaching of Holy Scripture but for our own, wishing its teaching to conform to ours, where as we ought to wish ours to conform to that of Sacred Scripture.” On Genesis, book 1, ch. 19, no. 39

Which is what you're doing, and St. Augustine says that to do that may undermine all of us.

Regarding your questions, I did not say "ANE" was a monolith, but it does have recurring patterns. They liked to repeat themselves, narrate the same story one after the other with slightly different viewpoints and styles, and were prone to exaggerate. Also weird figures of speech, like "God is a man with a long nose" apparently just meant "wise".

For example, take the Mesha Stele, a pillar from a Moabite King narrating his reign, including a war against Israel.
It includes this quote: "I fought against it [Israel] from the break of day till noon, and I took it: and I killed in all seven thousand men...women and maidens".
Killed all the men, women and children in the town? Brutal, and everyone seems to agree it never happened.
Now let's quote Deuteronomy: "And we captured all his cities at that time and utterly destroyed every city, men, women, and children; we left none remaining;"
All cities and the people destroyed? Odd, because these people reappear later in the book.
Seems like "we killed not just the men, but the women and children too" was a common manner of speech that got lost to us, doesn't it?

I think you get the idea. Interpret away, but remember: "In essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, in all things charity"

Hans Georg Lundahl

@alonso19989 Even private exegesis cannot contradict dogma, directly or (important in this context) by implication.

"Science and history can be wrong and have been wrong often, but they can help shed light onto the context."

No, they can't, because they are not statements. Scientists and historians can be wrong in the statements they make and that's one reason to not lump them together into "Science" as if it were one substance or "History" as if it were another.

The best definition I could give of Science in the singular would be "a type of activity" and a given type of activity either is licit or it isn't. If the type is licit, anything illicit or otherwise wrong is up to the individual application.

The best definition I could give of History would in fact not be "a type of activity concerned with individual events in the past" (I prefer calling that Historiography or Historic Scholarship), but "the series of individual events, especially as they can be known with public certainty, and even more especially those that already are known" -- also not liable to be in error. I think this is a good resumé of how John Henry Newman saw the matter of the subject.

"The thing is we shouldn't presume to know with certainty, and demand others to believe with certainty, things that weren't defined by Council or Papal decree."

Even if they follow from it? Even if they are the traditional proposition?

That sounds very legalistic to me. And you are contradicting papal decrees in connexion with the Council of Ephesus. The moment Nestorius denied Theotokos, he had already fallen into teaching heresy, and no longer had the authority of Patriarch. This is clear from Pope St. Coelestine.

"What the Church teaches about Scripture is that it's historical and is correct in what it asserts."

What the Church by tradition teaches about Biblical history is also part of what She teaches about Scripture.

"Genesis has been hotly debated on what the author even meant to convey. By the first 5 verses you got half a dozen metaphors, and numbers in the first two chapters are ALL hinting at something deeper."

The amount of time it took can however be limited by reference to Exodus 20 or Mark 10:6.

"The implication God is within time and has a voice and body should raise alarm bells to any literalist."

God's acts about creation are events in time. Theophany is a thing, and is necessary to account for God and Adam speaking.

"Adam existed, the Fall happened, etc. We can discuss this all day, but you did make clear you intend to insist that you can get scientific knowledge from Genesis."

No. I didn't. I never admitted that the "age of the universe" is the kind of thing that a certain type of enquiry can answer, that enquiry being limited by non-reference to eyewitnesses and what can be deduced from natural law.

"You also claim that's not in Tradition. That's not the case. Augustine expressed with confidence his opinion, but in that same book he wrote:"

Not same book, if you mean scroll length divisions of the work. The one moment creation is for books 5 and 6, perhaps already in book 4.

“we should not rush in headlong and so firmly take our stand on one side that, if further progress in the search of truth justly undermines this position, we too fall with it. That would be to battle not for the teaching of Holy Scripture but for our own, wishing its teaching to conform to ours, where as we ought to wish ours to conform to that of Sacred Scripture.” On Genesis, book 1, ch. 19, no. 39

He was debating on two views of cosmology (both geostatic ones).

Unlike what I have on my heart, both were held with roots backwards, the one he did not hold to had been held by St. Hippolytus and some, I think.

"Which is what you're doing, and St. Augustine says that to do that may undermine all of us."

You are overanalysing both of us.

And you are above all over-confident in "Science" (the hypostasis you make of Scientists) being identic to his "further progress in the search of truth" and especially this is moot when he adds "justly" which changes in scientists and their fashions not always are at all.

"Regarding your questions, I did not say "ANE" was a monolith, but it does have recurring patterns."

Possible.

"They liked to repeat themselves,"

They preferred to repeat a noun over using an ambiguous pronoun, to repeat a clause over an ambiguous "it" or "therefore" ...

"narrate the same story one after the other with slightly different viewpoints and styles,"

I actually don't know any good examples, and I am not unfamiliar with Enuma Elish.

"and were prone to exaggerate. Also weird figures of speech, like "God is a man with a long nose" apparently just meant "wise"."

I don't think "man with a long nose" is ever said of God (the one of the Bible), but the figure of speech, while weird, is understandable. "Long nose" = "good sense of smell" = wisdom.

// For example, take the Mesha Stele, a pillar from a Moabite King narrating his reign, including a war against Israel.
It includes this quote: "I fought against it [Israel] from the break of day till noon, and I took it: and I killed in all seven thousand men...women and maidens".
Killed all the men, women and children in the town? Brutal, and everyone seems to agree it never happened. //

I looked it up. It's supposed to be the basically "same" story with a difference as IV Kings chapter 3, 4 to 28. I looked that up.

Two options.

1) The stele (somewhat preciciously) recounts early victories of Mesha, before Elisaeus came into the fray;
2) It never happened, but Mesha had ruins to explain, and he used a somewhat totalitarian power to engrave that the ruins were those of Israelites (rather than ruined by Israelites).

It's in either case not a question of clearly exaggerating a thing that clearly happened. It's more like a case of straight out lying.

// Now let's quote Deuteronomy: "And we captured all his cities at that time and utterly destroyed every city, men, women, and children; we left none remaining;"
All cities and the people destroyed? Odd, because these people reappear later in the book.
Seems like "we killed not just the men, but the women and children too" was a common manner of speech that got lost to us, doesn't it? //

I'd first of all not want to parallel the lies or precicious triumphs of the Mesha Stele with anything in the Bible.

There could be some other thing escaping for the moment, like, what if Deuteronomy 3 gives a bigger panorama of things occurring in Deuteronomy and Joshua?

"I think you get the idea. Interpret away, but remember: "In essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, in all things charity""

The problem is, if you allow for Neanderthals living 40 000 years ago — are they Adamites or Pre-Adamites?
Pre-Adamites, already condemned, and condemning that is an essential.
Adamites — places Adam very much earlier than Moses who would have had traditions from him on Genesis 3.