“The Bible tells us how to go to heaven, it doesn’t tell us how the heavens go.” Pope Leo Xlll

@jessicag.3694

4 жыл бұрын

Great quote! Where was that from?

@risingwindspress

4 жыл бұрын

Galileo said that too

@eggmar5470

4 жыл бұрын

Of course it does . Based on belief and not certainty the Bibble has many descriptions of how heaven goes . I am not going to handpick them . You do the research I already know .

@irfanalam7253

4 жыл бұрын

No man the holy Qur'an tells us how to go to the heaven

@fxrianriantoro1791

4 жыл бұрын

@@irfanalam7253 Qur'an ia false

Science is merely man’s discovery of God’s creation.

@eggmar5470

4 жыл бұрын

@brian elliot too many contradictions . The answer is a moral code as in fables and parables to keep peace & love even though many religions are sometimes horribly misused to the detriments of all greedy dictators and populations .

@eggmar5470

4 жыл бұрын

>> message of peace Just as all religions & atheisms evolve through changes in doctrine by evolutionary thinking & discoveries , so did pre-history societies use the theisms and atheisms for ruling the people with truth & lies both . Jesus had a main message of peace so did the major theists and atheists in various levels of intensity >

@eggmar5470

4 жыл бұрын

@brian elliot Ah yes .Your first zilch is that your wrong . Whether it is scribblings or not , there are definite references to peace . Not as the world gives it but as Jesus gives it (QUOTE) >>ambiguity of Biblical writingsgenocidal tendencies never once talked about peace

@eggmar5470

4 жыл бұрын

@brian elliot Hey Brain...I never claimed to PROVE anything . I gave examples of how theists would claim proofs . I am just the referee . Some atheists make false claims too you know .

@eggmar5470

4 жыл бұрын

@brian elliot >>Atheism is the denial of the claim that a god exists

My atheist friend asked me how I could believe genesis and I sent him this video. I am now one step further in my diabolical plot to turn him into a priest. *cackles maniacally*

@JustMe-ob3nw

4 жыл бұрын

Liz Lake 😂

@st_robert_bellarmine

4 жыл бұрын

"We record what is to all known, and cannot be doubted by any, that God, on the sixth day of creation, having made man from the slime of the earth, and having breathed into his face the breath of life, gave him a companion, whom He miraculously took from the side of Adam when he was locked in sleep." ~ Pope Leo XIII, Arcanum, #5, given at St. Peter's in Rome, the tenth day of February, 1880, the third year of Our pontificate

@newgeorge

4 жыл бұрын

Good luck with that!

@luke-sq9fc

4 жыл бұрын

“You have to understand the Genre” You mean Fiction right? 😂

@j.k.6865

4 жыл бұрын

@@luke-sq9fc yeah, Genesis mostly falls under poetry, mythology and legends. It's metaphorical, kinda like Revelation (there are many parallelism in those 2).

Way to go Father!! I really enjoy your teaching. God bless

So so spiritually educated! Thank you Bishop Robert Barron.

@st_robert_bellarmine

4 жыл бұрын

"We record what is to all known, and cannot be doubted by any, that God, on the sixth day of creation, having made man from the slime of the earth, and having breathed into his face the breath of life, gave him a companion, whom He miraculously took from the side of Adam when he was locked in sleep." ~ Pope Leo XIII, Arcanum, #5, given at St. Peter's in Rome, the tenth day of February, 1880, the third year of Our pontificate

@VibrantNTingling This is why you have to read the Bible within the context of a community of interpretation. How do you know what Hamlet means? By reading it utterly on your own? No, you enter into a centuries-long community of conversation. What I'm driving at is the Catholic position that the Bible must be read within the Church.

You know what I always find amusing? The insinuation--evident in your response--that the metaphorical is tantamount to silliness or nonsense. Metaphors--in poetry, mythology, and religion--bear extraordinary amounts of meaning. The binary option is not literal truth or nonsense. And friend, metaphorical and non-literal readings of Genesis have been on offer since the ancient church. Take a look at Origen's and Augustine's treatments of these texts, if you doubt me.

@st_robert_bellarmine

4 жыл бұрын

"We record what is to all known, and cannot be doubted by any, that God, on the sixth day of creation, having made man from the slime of the earth, and having breathed into his face the breath of life, gave him a companion, whom He miraculously took from the side of Adam when he was locked in sleep." ~ Pope Leo XIII, Arcanum, #5, given at St. Peter's in Rome, the tenth day of February, 1880, the third year of Our pontificate

@SheltonDCruz

4 жыл бұрын

@@st_robert_bellarmine Yes it should be read as spiritualism, mysticism etc and not literal.

@freda7961

4 жыл бұрын

​@@rafaelwilks You keep on quoting that, but what does that even mean? I don't think it's contrary to what Fr. Barron explained. I am far from being an expert - in fact, I'm new at this and I'm just another layperson - and please correct me if I'm wrong, Fr. Barron. Rafael, I think the confusion lies in the meaning of literal sense. By "literal sense" in understanding the Scriptures, it means that which has been expressed directly by the inspired human authors. Simply put, I *think* it means that you take the words of the text for what they are (but not as to the intended meaning of the message or the realities that we can take from the text). At the very least, you start from there - at the biblical words employed. But it does not mean that it doesn't have a deeper meaning (and more often than not, it has). In other words, it opens the door for other senses. So, without taking away the "literal sense" of Genesis, and in fact, we begin from there, the proposition being advanced is that, Genesis is not a meant as revelation of the metaphysical aspect or truths about the world. That's not the meaning, the reality, the revelation being communicated by God. It is not meant as a futuristic and scientific treatise. Our ancestors were not granted with scientific knowledge far beyond their time (and ours). So, we can and *should* still consider the "literal sense" but we don't have to take all its meanings "literally." I believe though that it remains to have historical significance, i.e., we have our first parents or ancestors, referred to as "Adam" and "Eve," that fell from God's grace (stated otherwise, that there is the "original sin"), among many other things, of course, such as that God created the universe, etc. Also, I don't think that our misinterpretation of Genesis in good faith, supposing it is a misinterpretation, would require repentance. We still affirm and believe that salvation is through Christ. And I would like to add to what I said earlier that, indeed, there are a lot of metaphors, parables, and figurative language used in the Bible. Your enthusiasm is appreciated though, so is your concern. God bless!

@YeOldeStatistician

2 жыл бұрын

@@SheltonDCruz Modern literalism is largely a consequence of science, which also insists its texts be taken literally.

@YeOldeStatistician

2 жыл бұрын

@@freda7961 Literal sense includes the metaphorical, because the metaphorical reading requires taking the exact words. "You are the salt of the earth" appears to be a straightforward declarative sentence, but no one supposes that Jesus transformed the apostles into sodium chloride. But notice that if he had said "You are the asparagus of the earth" the meaning would be utterly different.

God willing, may you be blessed with many years Bishop ! Thank you for another great video.

This was so beautiful, and really helped my understanding, thank you

@alexanderbrown2717

2 жыл бұрын

Maybe you can help me understand this anybody? Why do cardinals wear purple and scarlet? Revelation 17 4 And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication:

@chasingdowntruth

2 жыл бұрын

​@@alexanderbrown2717 Personally, I view the bible as a diary written by men in a time where things were less than ideal morally and so even though I value the bible for some things and enjoy reading about the allegories at times or the accounts of encounters with Jesus, personally, I feel its important never to follow the letter of the law so to speak, but our own hearts and spirits and what we truly feel is right because I believe that God gave us all a moral compass within our hearts and intuition and if we don't lie to ourselves about what it tells us, I believe that we can always rely on it to guide us in the right direction. I got a notification that this was in response to my comment, I apologize if its not and if it was actually directed at the speaker of the video lol.

@alexanderbrown2717

2 жыл бұрын

@@chasingdowntruth Psalm 119 89 For ever, O Lord, thy word is settled in heaven. John 1 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. Thank you God that it is your word. Thank you God that I serve a powerful God and not a weak God. My God is powerful enough to make the entire universe and give me the perfect word of God in the King James Version

@sensengine I'm absolutely amazed how common your misunderstanding is! Take a good hard look at the interpretive tradition and you'll see that allegorical, spiritual, and theological readings of the Bible have been on offer from the earliest days. I think a lot of people are duped by the "Inherit the Wind" version of this question. But that play (and movie) were about the struggle with fundamentalism, not with Catholicism.

@samuelwalker920

3 жыл бұрын

Sounds like a denial of Original Sin and therefore, a denial of the Immaculate Conception.

Just going to be straight forward with you, Father Barron. I love your videos.

Loved it - thank you Fr. Barron!

Thank you, Bishop Baron. Your logical and intelligent position gives me hope!

@cricketcoach2108

Жыл бұрын

ok

You could say that the Book of Genesis is like a table of contents, giving a basic outline of the world, and science is the actual contents of the book of human knowledge. The more I learn from science, the more I admire and love God as the Poet of the world!

@lawrenceharold8599

2 жыл бұрын

@PinkPaprika You could say that, but it wouldn't offer much illumination or coherence. If the table of contents in no way maps to content, which is the exact case we find, then the two cannot reasonably be said to be mutually supportive.

I really appreciate your wisdom on the topic. Stay blessed!

My religion teacher said that genesis does not teach us scientific truth but only the things we need to know for our salvation made simpler for people back then to understand

@anthonylowder6687

Жыл бұрын

Agree

As an atheist, I find this amazing. Love the Catholic theology although I don't necessarily believe it.

@PInk77W1

5 жыл бұрын

I remember reading a biography of Pope John XXlll. His best friend would visit him at the Vatican and he was an atheist. The Cardinals and others would give the atheist guy a hard time. Finally he asked Pope John to call off the dogs. Pope John laughed and said “You think they listen to me ?”

@eggmar5470

4 жыл бұрын

wow ..way.. cool atheist ;; on the road to understanding all cultures , good or evil and in between .

@IsaacsCOOLwhenitsHOT

4 жыл бұрын

It’s not just Catholics, although they have so much good to say about it, but I’m a Protestant Bible and Ministry Major at a liberal arts university and this is all we’re taught. Those who take science, genre, and God seriously, believing they all coincide, tend to think in this direction.

@eggmar5470

4 жыл бұрын

There is a science of religions too ! How do you believe the unbelievable ? Science also tries to interpret the spiritual world too ! Only there is not much to use as proof definitive ! How do you believe the unbelievable ? How do you prove mysteries ?

@tinopacino9400

4 жыл бұрын

John Duffy Interesting.. Sounds Like you are Headed to Belief.🙂👍 Especially If you are Here. Seems Like you are More agnostic than atheist..

Fundamentalists and Militant Atheists who think there is a clash between religion and science just show both their ignorance of Biblical interpretation, History, etc so I will address a couple of the things always mentioned. (i)Genesis has always been read by the greatest theologians in history as being primarily allegorical. St Augustine in his Commentary on Genesis speaks about how it is foolish to read Genesis as a scientific account. St Jerome talks about how Genesis is written in the style of "myth". Origen of Alexandria in his commentary on Genesis speaks about how it would foolish to presume there was a literal Garden. St Thomas Aquinas warns against reading the Bible or Genesis in a way that contradicts reason or natural philosophy. (ii). Affirming Genesis is a "myth" does not compromise Biblical authority. The Bible is an entire library of Books with different genres and styles of writing such as myth, legend, epic, saga, wisdom literature, philosophy, poetry, biographies, ancient historiography, etc. Different books have different genres and styles of writing to them. As well when we study the historical context and original intention of the authors we clearly see that it is written in the style of a creation myth. As such it is not telling us how God created the Universe but why God created the universe and what the purpose of human beings are. (iii)The Fundamentalist reading of the Bible is a Modern innovation. Fundamentalism originated in the 19th century in particular Conservative, American Evangelical schools of theology and got popularized in the 20th century with the publication of the Fundamentals of the Christian Faith in 20th century. So it's actually a recent phenomenon in Christian history. (iv)The idea that Science and Religion have been in this eternal cosmic struggle is largely myth(pun intended). The origin of this myth goes back to Andrew Dickson White and William Draper who developed a view called the "conflict thesis" based on selective interpretations of history. Since the 1960s and 70s though this view has largely been debunked by historians of Science. They view it as being a form of Pseodo-history the same way Scientists view creationism as a form of Pseodo-science. When properly studied we see in many instance religion not obstructing science but even being complementary to developments in Science. So in the West for instance the Church built the University system which created the intellectual environment for the Sciences to emerge. Many of the people who founded some of the most important theories in Science were members of the clergy. Nicolaus Copernicus, the man who initiated the Scientific Revolution, was a Catholic priest and he was actually encouraged to publish his works by the Cardinals in Rome who read drafts of it in the 1530's and were amazed by it. Hence why he dedicated his work to Pope Paul III when he published his Heliocentric theory in 1543. The man who invented Modern Genetics, Gregor Mendel, was a Catholic Monk. The man who invented the Big Bang theory, George Lemaitre, was a Jesuit Priest who became the head of the Vatican Observatory of Science in the 1960's, an institution that in modern times in the last 50 years has produced over 50 nobel prize winners in Chemistry and Physics. Heck the Pope himself is a scientists. So this idea of religion having to be dragged kicking and screaming by Scientific evidence is bunk. In many cases religious people have been at the cutting edge of Science. Moreover the "conflict thesis" takes selective incidents in history such as Galileo and Darwin, leaves facts out, and props them up as signs of the ultimate clash between religion and science. In the case of Darwin Militant Atheists and Fundamentalists will have you believe this was the ultimate clash that undermined belief in God and the Bible. The fail to bring up some inconvenient facts to this narrative. 1) Darwin didn't invent evolution. Evolution was already established as a theory decades before he published Origin of Species and many of the people who contributed were actually members of the Anglican Church(including clergymen). Darwin simply gave the mechanism for explaining it. 2)Darwin himself was buried at Westminister Abbey by the Anglican Church for his contributions to Science. 3) Much of the opposition wasn't to the science of evolution, but the ethical/cultural implications of natural selection. At the time you had both the rise of Industrial Capitalism and Imperialism and so in that context the word "survival of the fittest" arouse people's fears of the ethical implications of Darwinism. Samuel Wilberforce, Anglican clergyman and son of William Wilberforce who lead the abolition against the slave trade, opposed the concept of natural selection on ethical grounds. Karl Marx, while supporting the Science, called it a bitter satire. In the case of Galileo it's the same thing. People repeat the tired narrative of the Church locking up Galileo for preaching scientific theories that opposed their dogma. They here too leave out important facts as well. 1)Heliocentric was taught in Church institutions for 70 years prior to Galileo. As mentioned Copernicus was encouraged to publish his theory by members of the Church. The Church at the time just said Galileo could say it was a fact because there was no scientific consensus yet(Cardinal Robert Bellarmine said these words). 2) The reason Galileo was brought before the Inquisition in 1616 the first time was because a group of Intellectuals known as the "pigeon league" where jealous of Galileo's successes because he was giving lectures in Rome and being funded by the Medici family. So they whipped up a false rumor that Galileo was attacking the Bible with his theories and got a fanatical monk Tommasco Caccini to preach this false rumor in 1614. 3)Some of Galileo's strongest defenders where Church people themselves. Benedetto Castelli, Benedictine Abbot who helped him discover the Sun Spots was a huge defender of his. The Dominican Monk who was the Abbot of Caccinni's monastery apologized to Galileo and disciplined Caccinni. 4) When Galileo was placed under House arrest in 1632 it wasn't because of a clash between religion and science but a personal dispute between him and the Pope. He and Pope Urban VIII where actually friends and Urban defended Galileo the first time he was brought before the Inquisition in 1616. He allowed Galileo to give 8 lectures to him personally in Rome and he urged Galileo to publish the pros and cons of his recent discoveries. Galileo did so, but in the form of a satire that made the Pope sound stupid. He took personal offense to this....and placed him under House arrest. So it's facts like these that are inconvenient for those that perpetuate the religion v science argument

@marymcandrew947

8 жыл бұрын

+JANHOI MCCALLUM It was a Jesuit priest from Austria who was jealous of Galileo who convinced Urban that he was the one portrayed as the fool Simplicio in the Dialogue concerning two systems that enraged the Pope at Galileo. Your reply was very informative.

@timspangler8440

8 жыл бұрын

+JANHOI MCCALLUM And what about the origin of life? Do you have a plausible explanation aside from a NON-alegorical God?

@seanc.mcnally2118

7 жыл бұрын

I don't think that one can really understand Genesis without reading the Jewish sages...

@CarlosZpeg

7 жыл бұрын

This is a response to the commentator that says Atheist believe in evolution Christian believe in Creation. Well many protestants don't believe in evolution but Catholic Christians do believe in evolution as part of creation. Perhaps most atheist you know do believe in evolution which they should, they are just missing some additional information or are ignoring some other questions to suite there convenience or wishful thinking but I personally, to my surprise, have met a considerable amount that do not believe in evolution when so much evidence supports it, and can has been actually observed in animals.

@mattrosenthal6134

7 жыл бұрын

+allahSATANgod You're such an idiot it's not even funny.

Excellent video Fr Barron!!!

This is very good, and I applaud your humility. Good for the modern church!

This is a beautiful and instructive video, Bishop Barron. Thank you.

@Charlie-mg3fq

4 жыл бұрын

The text you have kindly copied-and-pasted here sets forth a general rule of exegesis, that a literal sense does not itself contradict or exclude other senses of interpretation. It does not say (1) that every passage in the Bible admits all senses, nor does it say (2) that this or that passage is to be interpreted this given way. The last line of your comment does not follow from the quoted excerpt, nor does Bishop Barron espouse or contradict any generalized rule of exegesis in the video. There are quite clearly passages where an historical and literal interpretation is necessary, passages where it is subject to debate, and other passages where it would be clearly contrary to the text, e.g., interpreting Jesus's parables as historical truths. The idea that exegesis should not limit itself to one method of interpretation does not itself say anything about any passage of the Bible. It sets forth a cautionary procedure that leaves the interpretation of individual passages open to debate. The general principle that multiple interpretations can coexist is not denied by the video. But that principle does not foreclose substantive discussions on the interpretation of particular texts, nor does it self-execute and apply to every passage in the Bible.

@Charlie-mg3fq

4 жыл бұрын

@@rafaelwilks I appreciate that. But I must remind you that Bishop Barron is a subtle thinker. His statements here remind me of a book I read on Genesis a while back, one that you might enjoy--"The Meaning of Creation" by Conrad Hyers. I join you in your worry for the spiritual health of the American episcopate, but Bishop Barron is of least concern.

@Charlie-mg3fq

4 жыл бұрын

@@rafaelwilks I also recommend Pope Benedict's profound book on the Catholic doctrine of creation, which is also reflected in this video. His central message--that Genesis offers an incredible theological rebuttal to the pagan mythologies of the Near East, is not new. There is a hint of it in Deuteronomy: "Lest perhaps lifting up thy eyes to heaven, thou see the sun and the moon and all the stars of heaven, and being deceived by error thou adore and serve them, which the Lord thy God created for the service of all nations." Deut. 4:19. Hence why Genesis is sure to correct that error and explain that they are not gods.

Beautiful! Logical! Thank you Bishop Barron 👍👍

Thank you Bishop Baron for a deeper understanding of biblical text

I'm facilitating a Bible Study on Genesis right now at my parish. It's unfortunate that many people read it too literally. I agree: there is a tremendous amount of theology that echoes all the way into the New Testament. With so much unity in the Bible in terms of prophetic imagery and thematic resonance, it's easy to see the hand of the Holy Spirit moving even from the very beginning. People who claim that it was just men who wrote the Bible have not properly studied what it is that they criticize.

@cricketcoach2108

Жыл бұрын

ok

This is the best interpretation of Genesis I've heard to date

@st_robert_bellarmine

4 жыл бұрын

"We record what is to all known, and cannot be doubted by any, that God, on the sixth day of creation, having made man from the slime of the earth, and having breathed into his face the breath of life, gave him a companion, whom He miraculously took from the side of Adam when he was locked in sleep." ~ Pope Leo XIII, Arcanum, #5, given at St. Peter's in Rome, the tenth day of February, 1880, the third year of Our pontificate

@ELoah79

3 жыл бұрын

The apocrypha.the conflict with satan.Adam and Eve 1st and second book narrated by R.H. Charles. Find it on youtube and listened closely.its very much more on point.

@anthonylowder6687

Жыл бұрын

@@caiawlodarski5339 Genesis IS history!!!

As an evangelical Christian I find this kind of argument immensely frustrating. If God is Almighty how can you possibly know he didn't create it in 6 days? Also the work of Christ on the cross seems meaningless without an actual historical fall! What was the Saviour sent to save us from?

@st_robert_bellarmine

4 жыл бұрын

"We record what is to all known, and cannot be doubted by any, that God, on the sixth day of creation, having made man from the slime of the earth, and having breathed into his face the breath of life, gave him a companion, whom He miraculously took from the side of Adam when he was locked in sleep." ~ Pope Leo XIII, Arcanum, #5, given at St. Peter's in Rome, the tenth day of February, 1880, the third year of Our pontificate

@peterj6740

2 жыл бұрын

@@st_robert_bellarmine But John , it all started 13.8 billion years ago and planet earth came into existence 9 Billion years later and the first cell formed one billion years later than that. The bible author used the best understanding that man in his primitive understanding in his writing, and no one at that time could rise up to the true scientific understanding of reality but based purely on observation like the moon was bigger than a myriad of stars put together.

Order comes through LOVE!!! That should be the start of a meditation on how to examine conscience.

Beautiful. Feels so natural.

I'd much prefer cogent counter-argument to "facepalms."

@josephjackson1956

4 жыл бұрын

Bishop Robert Barron I totally agree with you!

@GoogleAccount-hp7bw

4 жыл бұрын

Here's a counter arguement your Excellency. ADAM EXISTED!

@cathyb7573

4 жыл бұрын

Bishop Robert Barron You have a bad habit of cherry picking .Tell me .if Adam And Eve are metaphors .? If so ..then there was no FALL . .you cannot pick and choose .its either a fact or not . .You are being dishonest to yourself and your flock . I say this as a Practising Catholic ..and a seeker of truth . Wherever it leads . .

You should debate Ken Ham!

Thank you for your expansion of our thoughts - we agree without reservation

@Mrmentalmadness123 The asking of that question proves that you don't know what I mean by "God."

I still regularly find myself confronted with this "Bible vs. science" stuff. It's so annoying.

@stephenandersen4625

7 жыл бұрын

And it seems to come both from people of faith and from atheists. They seem to feed on one another.

@7lord12

7 жыл бұрын

You would think the 'representatives of God' would be more for God's Word than for science. That baffles me.

@stephenandersen4625

7 жыл бұрын

Luiz Matteo why? Isn't science just one more example of God making an intelligible universe?

@7lord12

7 жыл бұрын

Absolutely Stephen, you are right. Good science reveals to us God's amazing creation and power. I'm talking about "made up science" ie Darwinian Evolution, which states God didn't create us but we evolved over millions of years from the dirt. I can understand uneducated people falling for it but not God's representatives on earth. Shouldn't they be representing God's testimony, not mans?

@stephenandersen4625

7 жыл бұрын

Luiz Matteo, Darwin said nothing about God. Evolution is not made up. It is merely part of how God created.

Well, Constantine had precious little to do with it. The canon of Scripture was largely determined by the time of Irenaeus in the late second century. In the course of time, the Church determined which texts witness authentically to the common faith of the community. Origen, Aquinas, Dante, even Milton, participate to some degree in the supreme authority of the Scriptural texts. Americans think that the Declaration and the Constitution fundamentally express the American idea. Same thing.

Excellent video, Father. A much different message than what's heard on EWTN radio.

I applaud your patience in dealing with farvision's pejorative characterizations of faith. Keep up the good work!

@manwithouthat44 Friend, I wish you'd drop the silly, dime-store psychologizing and actually give me a counter-argument.

This evangelical high school Bible teacher thanks you for this wonderful insight. Well done sir, and God bless you

Excellent explanation - everyone should listen to this

@st_robert_bellarmine

4 жыл бұрын

"We record what is to all known, and cannot be doubted by any, that God, on the sixth day of creation, having made man from the slime of the earth, and having breathed into his face the breath of life, gave him a companion, whom He miraculously took from the side of Adam when he was locked in sleep." ~ Pope Leo XIII, Arcanum, #5, given at St. Peter's in Rome, the tenth day of February, 1880, the third year of Our pontificate

As my old friend Chauncy Gardner used to say, "I love to watch." It's even better than actually Being There!

@VibrantNTingling So you would presume that your own, private reading of Hamlet will not be enhanced by an immersion in a centuries-long tradition of interpretation? Life experience and "common sense" is enough for you to read King Lear with complete adequacy? Okay friend, if you really believe that, I hereby give up!

Exquisite theology ❤️🙏

fascinating stuff fr. barron. thankyou

A fog of misunderstanding has been resolved into sunlit illumination. Thank you.

Original sin names the fact that there is something irreducibly wrong with us, something that we cannot fix on our own. Genesis speaks of that reality in the manner of a myth or saga, narrating events "in illo tempore." The point is that the struggle with sin is an ongoing dynamic of life here and now, and the offer of grace is a present reality.

@RGTomoenage11

5 жыл бұрын

Bishop Robert Barron So if is not literal, where does that leave original sin? If Adam is a mythical figure, who didnt exist than there is no such a thing as original sin and our bauptism is invalid.

@slavkosster

5 жыл бұрын

"For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents." Humani generis 37 The Church's teaching on original sin is quite clear. Humans were created by God perfect to be in union with him. Then Adam sinned and all other humans inherit it from him. Of course, Genesis is a great depiction of human nature and cannot be reduced solely to a tale of how the universe began but neither can it be reduced to a tale describing human condition.

@denvergreene

5 жыл бұрын

If there is no such thing as original sin, that means god made us as sinners and doomed the majority of us to hell, whatever that is.

@lproof8472

4 жыл бұрын

Bishop Robert Barron Bishop Barron: I know I’m 7 years late in this discussion, but I have a few questions on this video in which I’d like to understand the Catholic position. Should I equate the position that Genesis is not science with Genesis is not History? If so, how does one reconcile the the notion that Jesus and Paul seems to speak as though it’s history and Adam was a real individual? If not, how do you articulate the trouble in making the claim that the Genesis is not science, but is historical? Further, at what point does Genesis go from non-historical theology, to a historical account, and what do you base that on? I’m a Protestant, and I want to say that I appreciate your work, and have a deep respect for the Catholic tradition.

@vroomvroomcarnong

2 жыл бұрын

It’s more than that, isn’t it? Original sin is meant to say that there is something irreducible wrong with us AND that we weren’t created by God with something irreducible wrong. I think the tricky part of denying a literal proto-historical fall is that it really does seem to make God the creator of humans who have something irreducible wrong with them.

I love all! god bless all! thank you Jesus Christ! like Genesis some day we back to God arms

This has certainly increased my understanding of the Holy Bible and all the variety that’s in it; not just a book but a library.

You said, "God brought forth the world through a sheer non violent act of speech". How right you are Bishop Barron. The question is, now, what was the non violent act that brought forth our universe. God did act. So simple is the answer scientists, today, will never find it.

Thanks for this video, Fr.. Father, can you please explain how your statement, "Adam... We're not talking about a literal figure...," is reconciled with Humani Generis, e.g. #'s 37,38, &41? I hope you can expand on this issue, maybe in another video? It seems at least 3 other people have raised this issue besides me. I agree that there is a spiritual sense to scripture but it must be based on the historical/literal (ST I.1.10). So mustn't there be a true Adam in light of all this?

@magnuseng3345

2 жыл бұрын

I think Fr. Barron in this video describes him as a metaphorical figure, and only that is what he is talking about, "not talking about a literal figure". So I don't think Fr. Barron here is claiming that Adam is no historical figure.

Actually genesis follows modern science pretty close. Notice the bible did't say God created land until after he created the sun. Before that Genesis says the earth was void and empty. Science says the solar system started from the solar nebula. Which was nothing but dust and gas. Or as the Bible puts it void and empty no planets no Sun. The Bible says the land rose up out of the waters. Well modern science is saying Earth started out 100% covered by water and the land rose later. Earth was created first according to science and the moon used to be a part of earth until some giant impact.

@MusicalRaichu

3 жыл бұрын

I think you're missing the point of Genesis 1 ...

@rachealbrimberry8918

2 жыл бұрын

I watched a video proving just that.

Thank you for clarifying that. Please, teach us more?

Will do - please pray 4 me 2. Let us show the world love.

My issue with this is that the entirety of Genesis is a historical account of the Hebrew people from Adam to Joseph, so to say that the first couple chapters are a metaphorical narrative account of creation is simply contradictory to the “type of writing” the rest of that book is. Genesis doesn’t switch back and forth between genres. The whole thing is clearly a historical account, so it’s a big stretch to say that only the first chapter is not a purely historical statement.

@samposter7139

4 жыл бұрын

Verus Luciferum “doesn’t switch back and forth between genres” is not an accurate statement to make here. I would advise reading Genesis in quarters, that is 15 chapters per quarter. After each quarter contemplate on the narrative. Then look at the overall narrative of what the book of Genesis is about. I believe you’ll be dumbfounded in your criticism.

@rachealbrimberry8918

2 жыл бұрын

I agree. But I didn't always before. There's a video about scientists who prove that Genesis explains the biological and geological phenomena they study and observe around them.

Genesis 1 is worn to tatters from so much use in the Creation vs. evolution/religion vs. science debates. The quest for knowledge & facts has blown away the spirit of awe and wonder. To truly understand what the ancients gleaned from esteeming God as Creator, read Job 38-41 & let the language transport you.

So much in this video that I like.

Not so! I completely agree with you that Genesis three is of key theological importance and that the doctrine of original sin is indispensible to Catholic orthodoxy. But none of that relies on a crudely literalist construal of the story of Adam and Eve. For the details, consult John Paul II, and most recently, Cardinal Pell of Sydney, both of whom clarify that the first chapters of Genesis are not to be read literalistically.

"We record what is to all known, and cannot be doubted by any, that God, on the sixth day of creation, having made man from the slime of the earth, and having breathed into his face the breath of life, gave him a companion, whom He miraculously took from the side of Adam when he was locked in sleep." ~ Pope Leo XIII, Arcanum, #5, given at St. Peter's in Rome, the tenth day of February, 1880, the third year of Our pontificate

@reflectionsinthebible3579

Жыл бұрын

The Bible says dust, not slime.

I’m Catholic, I’ve studied Darwin in Catholic college... question: how does evolution square with the idea that in the beginning God created all things good and then we fell from Grace causing death and suffering by losing the original perfection of our nature? Evolution has death and suffering built into the process of creation. Doesn’t that mean that God didn’t create all things good?

@thomascurry4846

3 жыл бұрын

By virtue of man being created in a state of original justice, the biological species Homo sapiens was elevated to the rational human person by the soul. When man first sinned, humanity, in a sense, went back to square one, that is, being subject to death and suffering

@scotte4765

3 жыл бұрын

Evolution says nothing about death or suffering. Those are elementary facts of biology and of animal species having brains and nervous systems which can register physical and emotional pain. Evolution is about the diversification and adaptation of living species in response to changing environments over time. There's nothing in biology supporting the religious myth that human beings were ever immortal or immune to suffering in any way.

@shifuarena901

2 жыл бұрын

*YES the physical world has always been a parasitic foodchain laboratory of bloodshed & chaos~ that's what the evidence shows and this only makes sense in gnosticism.*

@reflectionsinthebible3579

Жыл бұрын

Perhaps angels helped create before their fall.

Consult his debate with Richard Dawkins. It's available on KZread.

Thank you. Super Serman on Genesis. Yes, I believe what you're stating on the book of Genesis. Amen

The problem I have always had with genre approach is the nagging question, " How did the early readers understand it and what criteria do you use when coming out of allergorical reading?" They are not easy questions. I am pretty certain the ancient world viewed it as recorded history, it is only with the advent of sophisticated thinking ( pre scientific) that allergorical interpretations take prominence.

@carolinpurayidom4570

2 жыл бұрын

Look at how the early church father or mother's interpreted it as well ancient rabbis perspectives then there is the churchs point of view

@MrCusefan44

7 ай бұрын

Early church fathers did not view this as recorded history - and to whatever degree they did view it as recorded history, they viewed the theological truths to be more substantial and would have adjusted their views on the historical nature of the text as evidence contradicted it. What appears to have happened is Origen’s writings which viewed Genesis as allegorical ended up getting further developed after his death and led to huge controversies; as a result a more literal interpretation began to be favored. The entire process is fascinating - it’s a series of philosophical developments which end up going too far, getting rejected, and an alternate philosophical approach which rejects the previous view gains favor. Then that strays into heresy…wash, rinse, repeat. Over, and over, and over… No matter how hard we try, we are not going to fully comprehend the glory of God while on earth.

The Council of Trent infallibly decreed: "If any one does not confess that the first man, Adam, when he had transgressed the commandment of God in Paradise, immediately lost the holiness and justice wherein he had been constituted; and that he incurred, through the offense of that prevarication, the wrath and indignation of God, and consequently death, with which God had previously threatened him, and, together with death, captivity under his power who thenceforth 'had the empire of death, that is to say, the devil,' and that the entire Adam, through that offense of prevarication, was changed, in body and soul, for the worse; let him be anathema." (Trent, Fifth Session, Decree Concerning Original Sin, Canon I)

Well, original sin does exist, and we are responsible for it. So it's no good blaming God for "cutting off our legs, etc." God wants life and life to the full, but human beings have a tendency to prefer darkness to light. That's another way of naming the essential dynamic of original sin.

Thank you for explaining it.

Lutheran here but genuinely contemplating converting to Roman-Catholicism because of videos like this.

@danielandres1579

3 жыл бұрын

How is it going so far?

@mikethemonsta15

3 жыл бұрын

I converted from Lutheranism to Roman Catholic just now!

Thanks for that evenhanded and rational response! You've managed to dismiss as foolish Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, Isaac Newton, Rene Descartes, Immanuel Kant, G.W.F. Hegel, Johann Sebastian Bach, Albert Schweizer, C.S. Lewis, and Fr. Georges LeMaitre, the formulator of the Big Bang theory. Friend, it might be helpful to read some serious religious thinkers and move past your Psychology 101 cliches.

What matters is the contingency of worldly things, the fact that they don't explain their own existence. They require causes extrinsic to themselves. You, for example, required parents and currently require food, air, and water. Were (and are) those things, in turn, contingent or necessary. If contingent, we have to keep looking. The only reasonable place to end this line of inquiry is to come to some reality whose very nature is to be.

Depends on which part of it you're reading.

I don't see creationism and evolution as mutually exclusive concepts. If God can create a Universe - God can use any technical process God chooses - the most efficient one seems the most likely.

@jessicag.3694

4 жыл бұрын

I like to imagine that God is delighted every time we discover something new, and immediately creates a new puzzle for the scientists to figure out

I used to be skeptical of this. It seemed to me like an excuse to continue believing even after science “proved us wrong”. But then I learned this is the most ancient way. Biblical literalism is this weird, modern thing. The Church fathers didn’t think like that. They thought like this.

@scotte4765

3 жыл бұрын

Evidence needed. When we know the Church (along with most other people) believed the sun moved around the earth up until Galileo's time, the idea that they took stories in Genesis literally long before that is extremely plausible.

@oliverford5367

2 жыл бұрын

"As it was in the days of Noah" They believed it literally

@Myself23512

2 жыл бұрын

@@oliverford5367 Since posting that comment, I have come to view it more literally. But how since science seems to make it impossible?

@oliverford5367

2 жыл бұрын

@@Myself23512 It's pre-scientific. It may have an important moral message but it represents 1st millennium BC understanding. The rainbow after Noah is what they thought at the time, before Newton's Optics

@Myself23512

2 жыл бұрын

@@oliverford5367 Maybe it was the first time that optic had ever happened. And yes, the Church fathers did interpret the scriptures symbolically. Most people didn’t but the important people did.

@Not2Black What does reason appeal to if not some objective state of affairs? Your original position, I'm afraid, locks you into a subjectivism that conduces toward relativism.

Part 2 The one show in particular I should like to recommend as I think you will find it both instructive and enlightening. The O'Reilly Factor, where the observation was made,"Tides goes in, tides go out, never a miscommunication, you can't explain that." I feel certain that with watching Bill O'Reilly you can only enhance your search for The Truth. I wish you well in your quest.

why is ken ham in the thumbnail

@letters_from_paradise

6 жыл бұрын

Hasdruban Pllumaj Because he taked the story of Genisis incredibly literally.

Bishop Barron... I am deeply concerned by the rush to discount the historicity of Genesis. Jesus regarded Genesis as history... His reference to the beginning with marriage, Was St. Paul lying when he referred to through 'one man' sin entered the world, or did St. Paul regard Adam as the first man... If so.. then our Holy Church, established by our awesome Lord and Saviour through the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, has been faithful to this throughout the centuries.. We should not change this now... I can't see your 'non literal' interpretation explicitly stated in the catechism... Please open your heart to trust God & accept His word... If Jesus believed it... So should we.... (not to mention all the other references in the Gospels and letters of Peter about the flood...)

Prayers for you the text is inspired by God

@MusicalRaichu

3 жыл бұрын

Sure it is. Nothing in the video contradicts that. So what's your point?

@Not2Black The argument from contingency shows that accepting the existence of a creator God in possession of every ontological perfection is rationally coherent.

HEBREWS 11:3 "Through FAITH we understand that the worlds​ were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which do appear."

@alexandersalesmaciel168

5 жыл бұрын

Yes Faith, but no Faith Alone :)

Wow there are a lot of fundies on here. Genesis is a story, but why do you guys think that makes it any less true? I encourage reading some of Tolkien's thoughts on fairy stories in order to gain a little bit more of an understanding of the exact truthfulness and power of fantasy and myth. Stories go where observable facts could never, but often bring back more truth with them than any fact could ever.

@anthonypuccetti8779

9 жыл бұрын

Johnny Nickel Story does not always mean an invented myth. The stories of Genesis cannot be merely symbolic or allegorical because they are about the true,living,God and the "first things",the beginnings of things that exist : the universe,living creatures,humanity and human ancestry,sin,the fallen condition of humanity and nature,death. So they must be true accounts of what happened. There are a few words in Genesis which may be symbolic,but the stories themselves are not,because but the God of Genesis is the true God,and he really did create all things by his own power,and there really was a first man and woman,and a devil,and an original sin,and a loss of perfect harmony with God,which affected the whole world. And the words which may be symbolic,such as tree of life and tree of knowledge,signify things that are real.

@manweelder4387

9 жыл бұрын

I never said the stories were of a symbolic nature, but they are stories. Any writer will tell you that a story does not equate to a 'fiction', especially myths. I reckon that there are more truths to Genesis than the term 'symbolic' can mean. This is because a 'symbol' holds no further meaning or use than what it represents. But Genesis surpasses symbolism in this way. The truthfulness of a 'first man and woman' is not in symbolism but in its reality. What makes it a 'story' is in its detail, such as the names of 'Adam and Eve', or the devil appearing as a snake. The details are probably not representations of reality in the way 'observational history' is, but they are mediums through which the greater truths can be understood through the blessing of creativity.

@anthonypuccetti8779

9 жыл бұрын

Johnny Nickel Then what did you mean by saying Genesis is a story and then using fairy stories and fantasy and myth as examples? No one denies that Genesis is a story or that it has stories. The debate is about whether the stories of Genesis relate real things and events. You may not regard the meaning of "story" as the same as fiction,but if a story is a myth,like the pagan myths,then it is a false history,and its meaning is false. Genesis is not a story because of certain details and persons in it,but because it gives an account of events. It is not always true that a symbol can have no further meaning than what it represents. There is the original meaning of a symbol,and there may be other meanings that are seen in it,either rightly or wrongly. A story can only be truthful to the extent that it conveys real events. There is a difference between truth,which is what is,and a subjective kind of meaning,which may be a false idea.

@manweelder4387

9 жыл бұрын

I argued that Genesis is a very special myth, because it is a very special truth. The two are not incompatible. Truth passes into history and history into myth. All myths hold a hint of truth, but I hold that the Judeo/Christian mythology of creation is by far the most truthful story there is. And as I pointed out, the understanding of these stories is not a matter of 'literal' intepretation. The truth of it surpasses the very question. 'Literal' is a meaningless word, insofar as it means 'acceptable because it occurs in this specific linear sequence'.

@anthonypuccetti8779

9 жыл бұрын

Johnny Nickel What do you consider the special truth of Genesis? Truth is that which is. The creation stories of Genesis are truthful because they correspond to reality,not because they teach lessons that are subjectively satisfying. A myth,properly speaking,is a false story about pagan gods and heroes. It is not just any traditional story that involves supernatural things. The creation stories in Genesis cannot be considered mythology because the God of Genesis is not a pagan god who was created out of chaos or nature or from an older pagan god,but the true,eternal God who created the universe. Pagan myths are not to be taken as factual because the pagan gods are not true gods. They are not worthy of belief. But the God of Genesis is worthy of belief because the universe had to have been created by an all-powerful creator. Reason tells us this,even apart from scripture and religion. Because the God of Genesis is the true God who created all things,it follows that the creation stories must be factual accounts of his creative action. It is not true that the understanding of the stories is not a matter of literal interpretation. And literal does not mean 'acceptable because it occurs in this specific linear sequence'. The literal sense is that which is directly expressed. The literal sense always needs to be considered because it is always there,and as St. Thomas Aquinas said, "All other senses of sacred scripture are based upon the literal". The verses in the creation stories which tell of God's creative actions are plain statements of fact. God actually did create everything. This is knowable apart from scripture and religion. We know that we and the rest of the natural world exist,and reason tells us that there must be an all-powerful creator of all things.

@Shlomayo The answer was “The literal historical sense may not be questioned.” The accounts of these events in Sacred Scripture are NOT MYTHS or LEGENDS, or MORALIZING FABLES, but HISTORICAL NARRATIVES in the LITERAL SENSE. Faith Seeking Understanding, page 198, Charles Belmonte (my emphasis)

@jormorcastan Yes, I think he called him "Joey."

@sensengine Oh give me a break! The Fall is happening every day, as we "fall away" from what God intends for us. We "fall short" of our true humanity. We wander in the land of unlikeness. Choose your metaphor; it doesn't effect the deep theological truth being communicated.

Again with the ad hominem question, Steve? Really? I thought Fr Barron made it quite clear that God is not a being in the universe among other categories of being, but He is the ground of all being. All things live and move and have their being in Him. That's the depth of the biblical understanding of God as the creator of all. I can't make you understand what you refuse to understand. It's not a new idea that God is the ground or source of being. I know 1st year Philosophy undergraduates have to begin to wrestle with this concept in some way or another. Apparently, you haven't even scratched the surface of this notion.

Great explanation!

Bishop Barron, would you be able to comment on the common practice among Creationists of dating the age of creation by adding together the ages in the biblical geneologies? Is this technique valid, or are those geneologies not literal historical records but more symbolic in character?

@carolinpurayidom4570

2 жыл бұрын

No it's not since the time scale of the Bible is so different to the time of today. Also it differs from book to book

Science, and Feith conduct to treat truth. No contradiction because both came from God.

@anthonypuccetti8779

8 жыл бұрын

There are contradictions whenever scientists make false claims about nature and natural history. The natural sciences are naturalistic, so they have a false view of nature, which leads to false claims about natural causation.

@benthomason3307

5 жыл бұрын

in all honesty the main reason I believe in an ancient earth is because if it weren't true then you'd expect "young-earth atheists" to be a thing. there ought to be at least one scientist out there going "I do not believe in any sort of God or higher power, let me make that perfectly clear. but according to my recent findings the earth may not be as old as we previously thought. It seems that it's actually 6,000 years old, but let me repeat that it does not follow from that that it was put here by any sort of higher power."

Catholics don't treat the Bible as God's "dictation." It is the Word of God in the words of men. And that's precisely why it has to be carefully interpreted, especially with a sensitivity to genre. The Gospels are ancient biographies and decidedly not "fiction" in the contemporary sense. You seem to be looking for a univocal answer, and I won't give you one. The material is too diverse and complex.

No! All of those works of art might be seen as true or beautiful to varying degrees, but none of them speaks of the tradition of revelation commencing with the formation of a people Israel and culminating with Christ.

Bishop, what are your views on evolution and Darwinism? I haven't found anywhere where you deal with those theories. Thanks

Cheers Steve. Remember, you will never learn anything from atheists as their grasp of reality is severely truncated. They have painted themselves into the cheap and narrow corner of philosophical materialism, which is ultimately a self-refuting world view. But, if you sincerely seek the truth, He will reveal himself to you, because truth is not just an idea but a person and His name is Jesus Christ. God hates sin but loves the sinner - that's you and me and everybody else on earth, That's the Good News. God loves us and we are not alone. He created the world and then became incarnate in the world to heal us - to show us the Way, the Truth and the Life. Instead of the grindingly depressive and oppressive atheism that masquerades as knowledge, the true reality waits patiently with open arms. It would be a huge mistake to turn away from His love and embrace the bitter darkness instead. And yet, that's what atheism asks you to do by filling your mind with lies, half-truths and pseudo-science. Why? Because atheism is itself a religion and they follow the murderous father of lies. Jesus said: "He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies." John recorded these words of Jesus in his Gospel. Remember, John was the disciple that personally witnessed the crucifixion, death and resurrection of Jesus and he wrote about these events. This historical document has now become part of the New Testament of the bible. John himself, is a real, historical person who personally related the Gospel to Polycarp. It is also recorded by Irenaeus, who heard him speak in his youth, and by Tertullian, that Polycarp had been a disciple of John the Apostle. Furthermore, Jerome wrote that Polycarp was a disciple of John and that John had ordained him bishop of Smyrna. These are historical, documented facts! The historicity of the bible is without peer among ancient documents. More than that, there exists an unbroken personal witness that is alive today and called the church. From man to man or from man to written page to man, the bible declares the history between God and man on earth. No other book on earth compares to the bible and that's the truth.

Adam was literal and a historical man

@JESUSisComingBackSoon-ue9pc

2 жыл бұрын

What did u expected from a catholic?

@MrFossil367ab45gfyth

2 жыл бұрын

Could be.

@jorgeaguilera4329

2 жыл бұрын

Adam represents an early human/humans with full consciousness of his own mortality manifested in the downing of anticipating the future and an early discernment of what was good and evil. So Adam is still an archetype of early humans.

@siaotak4657

2 жыл бұрын

Adam was not literal and a historical man. The Genesis is poetry. Even the Orthodox approve. Are you a heretic? A protestant? Think this through a bit.

@pweetypoo

2 жыл бұрын

Adam in hebrew is man

Bishop Barron, peace be with you. Is there any way I can contact you? I have only one question regarding the position of the church on Genesis.

So as a Catholic "can" I believe in polygenism (multiple ancestors)? If so what implications, if any, does this have for the doctrine of original sin?

this is refreshing! i was raised evangelical which created so much confusion growing up.

@wolfieinu

4 жыл бұрын

Yeah same. Glad to no longer have my religion shackled to obvious nonsense like young-earth creationism.

@DanieGirl-tt9xc

4 жыл бұрын

Wolfie Inu so many of the evangelical youth i grew up with have now become atheist. i found evangelical (and most protestant sects) just could not give me good enough answers! I believe in God and in his Son and the Spirit, but i also believe science. I was always made to feel dumb when i asked hard historical questions. to add to the misery, i was also homeschooled

@wolfieinu

4 жыл бұрын

@@DanieGirl-tt9xc Yep, yep. Fellow homeschooler here. South African, but raised to a great extent on the ACE curriculum. (Fortunately not on the alternative, Theocentric Christian Education, which many homeschoolers jokingly referred to as Geocentric Christian Education.) IDK, I'm still glad in a way that I came through this process because at least I questioned stuff and broke through the limited conditioning eventually. But it's unfortunate that this approach has left many people with the impression that if young-earth creationism isn't true, then the Bible isn't true, to which atheism is the only intellectually honest conclusion. Dear old Ken Ham and Co. made sure of that. Let's not get started on Kent Hovind either. Man. All so unnecessary. Protestantism was a mistake.

@DanieGirl-tt9xc

4 жыл бұрын

Wolfie Inu i was made to use the Abeka brand curriculum. a joke! i swear Ken Ham must have written it. my homeschooling (illinois, USA) was almost completely made up of memorizing verses, a little math and cooking. i was blessed enough to have Native American heritage on my father’s side as this afforded me some knowledge on camping, hunting and getting together every year with local tribes for a Gathering and talking about different spirituality. i ended up joining the Army for 8 years right after graduation. i was unprepared for life thanks to isolating homeschool experience. the army taught me what i was missing and in that time i realized i had questions my evangelical/baptist upbringing could never answer.

@wolfieinu

4 жыл бұрын

@@DanieGirl-tt9xc Well, it's good you had that other angle to see things from. It really is a very isolating life. I was not socially adapted at all by the time I went to uni. Maybe I'm still not. Things got weird for a few years. I ruined at least one relationship. It's a shame because there are good aspects to the whole homeschooling idea and I'm glad that I avoided public schools, especially in this country. But the whole weird quasi-political evangelical scene and YEC and all that kind of wasted several years of my life on pure nonsense. Mixed feelings, really. At least I didn't become a normie. And I don't resent anyone for it. It's just... man, how limiting it is to be in that headspace. When I finally got out of YEC, I realized I'd been convincing myself of it against my better judgment all along, because I thought it was the right thing to do at the time. I really should have caught on sooner. It feels as if I used to be insane. Or, as Kent Hovind would say: "Dumb on purpose." Weird. Weird. I've moved on and all, but in some ways I'm still not sure how to process it. Good to hear you made it out without going full fedora atheist in response though. Most of my friends from that time are still trapped in the evangelical/YEC mindset somehow and talking to them about it is tricky.

Excellent explanations of Genesis....and I agree genre is key. However, Bishop when you say the church was always clear that this was not to be taken literally as history I must take umbrage. I grew up in the 60's and70's attending Catholic school. Never ever was it taught that Genesis was anything but literally historic. We were never to question the nuns and priests about such teachings. I must also add a little humor here. When I went on to college (Jesuit college), I was looked squarely in the eyes by my first Jesuit theology professor who said to me, "Chris you are so naive". Point made!

Sure: many parts of Genesis, Exodus, Judges, Joshua, Samuel, Kings, Maccabees, the Gospels, etc.

This is really really good

It's sounds nice to give some profound explanation how Genesis shouldn't be taken literally and what it symbolizes etc. but apart from it being rather arbitrary, how about the implications of such an interpretation? In the genealogy of Jesus in the gospel of Lucas Adam is clearly depicted as the forefather of Jesus and thus a real person. If Adam was some kind of 'theological metaphor' or something then what about his son Seth? Was he a metaphor too? And what about Enos, Cainan, Maleleel and so on? Also metaphors? Noah? King David? All metaphors? Jesus? Are the accounts about Jesus accurate and actually describe historic persons and events? Then how can these real persons come from metaphoric persons? At what point do the persons depicted in the bible and the events around them become real? What is the standard for determining that? There is such a thing as reality, of which there can only be ONE. There is no theological reality and a scientific one, that's utter nonsense, there's only THE reality. Off course you can have discussions about myths and symbolism and what parts of the bible are true and symbolic etc. But then there must be some objective method of determining what is real and symbolic, you cannot just make that up arbitrarily.

@giovannimartini6405

5 жыл бұрын

The Bible is not a book, but a collection of books. Each one is different and was written with thousands of years of difference. Reading Genesis the same way we read a book written by historians (like Kings) or by direct witnesses (the Gospel) is as wrong as reading all the books as literal.

@vincezetti7216

5 жыл бұрын

You are correct. Genesis reads as a factual, historical account, NOT as a myth, allegory or metaphor.

@alexandersalesmaciel168

5 жыл бұрын

Lmao, Adam is The Forefather of Everyone

Everyone commenting on this clip seems to be fundamentalist Christians who believes the universe is just 5,000 years old. If God created the universe then imbued it with intelligibility, wouldn't that elevate our status as stewards of creation who get to encounter God more and more as we get to slowly understand the universe that we live in.

Because there is a lot more than myth or legend in the Bible. There is apocalyptic, letters, Gospels, theologically informed history, etc.

I'm seeing a lot of comments saying that science is bad because of the bible, and the other claim that religion is false because science disproves it. I believe that science and religion should compliment one another to help us understand this world we live in. Accept the things that make sense. Challenge and compare either with each other and do research and study how they can interact, if applicable.

@MusicalRaichu

3 жыл бұрын

"science and religion should compliment one another"? okay ... Science: How wonderful it is to have religion! Religion: Thank you, science, you're lovely too!