Vatican blasts Creationism as "useless"

How on earth is this an attack on the Bible??! It's an attack on an erroneous fundamentalist literalist interpretation of Genesis 1 &2.

And quite right too.

 

This is clearly an attack on the Word of God.

 

So you believe that when the Bible says that God created the earth in six days, that he really didn't create the earth in six days and just said that anyway?

 

I don't believe it should be interpreted literally, no. Nor do most Christians, historically or contemporaneously.

 

Why is it libs think they speak for everybody.

 

That is an attack on the word of God no matter how you feel about evolution or creationism...

Somethings are to be taken literally in the Bible.. some symbolically, but he used the word "never"... which is just as dangerous as saying we "always" have to take everything in the Bible as literal.

 

He also qualifies it with the word 'simply'; the two have to be read together.

For the record, I am not one of those nasty-wasty 'libruls' either. It however never ceases to amaze me how an attack on one method of Biblical interpretation can be construed and conflated as an attack on the Bible itself.

Plus ca change, meme ca change...:BangHead:

 

The distortion of scripture in the way non literals do is not simply a different method of interpretation. It is a clear distortion and a major section of scripture and the results of this distortion effects more than the creation issue.

 

That's weird; you see, I would regard the literalist interpretation as producing the distortion in more than a few places...."The Bible says..." is always the beginning of the discussion, never the end.

 

Do you believe we should interpret the resurrection literally?

 

Of course you do. This non literal manner allows for all kinds of personal interpretations.

 

I challenge this assertion. Please provide evidence that what you claim is true and that you are not bearing false witness against historic and contemporary Christians.

The text of creation in Genesis is clearly written as a historical narrative.

I always find it interesting when folks take the clear words of the Bible and feel the need to twist them because of what science postulates. The world has fallen in sin, we see things with sin-tainted eyes, yet they trust these observations above and against the Scripture, which is God's word, untainted by sin.

 

Perhaps you could site those places instead of just making another comment without any facts to back you up?

 

Libs have a habit of interpreting the Word of God by using outside means rather than itself. In this case science interprets scripture. And unreliable science at that.

 

Yes; that's clearly historical

 

How do you decide that it's "clearly historical?"

 

So will I

Consensus of the teaching of Jesus' Church