BIG BANG FIZZLES, MOSES SIZZLES
http://www.audiosancto.org/auweb/20080420-Big-Bang...

Inocencio, if I may cut through all the stuff that is suitable for enriching lawns, the simple translation of his answer to your question is: Yes.
Chicken: Are you enjoying the jello-wrestling?

Dear John,
You wrote:
So the only true conclusion can be that your opinion about my alleged restrictiveness is, unfortunately, again false.
Thank you for clarifying you position. I did not mean to offend or draw incorrect conclusions. One can only work with what one has to go on and that may be misunderstood. That is why discussion is important.
The Chicken

First of all, belied by clearly false theory of evolution which denies God's creation and thus cannot be anything but a false opinion yesterday we both made a mistake by using the word “theories” as if it meant hypoteses (opinions):
e.g. “that scientists are free to use theories to come to the knowledge alone. Knowledge is always certain otherwise it is not knowledge but opinion (theory) which can fail and that's precisely what St. Thomas Aquinas says.” (my statement)
and
“Obviously, they has theories in order to do testing” (your statement).
I checked dictionaries for the exact meaning of the word “theory” and got this: “Knowledge which is logical generalization of experience”. Thus theory is pure knowledge which is certain and cannot fail!
The shocking consequence of this discovery is, for example, that theory of evolution is not a theory at all but is only a hypotesis (opinion) and thus a pseudo-theory or quack-theory: its generalization ends up with clearly illogical conclusion that God didn't create the universe and so it fails to satisfy the logical part of the condition for a theory.
But who would believe in that hypotesis if the truth were stated that it was only a hypotesis?
So it seems that this modern and improper use of terms like “theory” (used for hypotesis), “science” (also used for hypotesis) etc. serves to the purpose of fooling people into believing mere opinions or even falsities.
“As far as medieval science, I said that their science was empirical.”
Chicken, modern science is also empirical. Except theology science has always been founded on experience: practical or speculative experience.
What I forgot to point out yesterday is that omission of hypoteses by St. Thomas Aquinas from the definition of science (although scientists of his age certainly had hypoteses) proves that hypoteses don't belong to science but are only directly related to it.
In sum, science is only about knowledge i.e. only about principles (self-evident truths, facts) and logical (true) conclusions drawn from them.
As to my sentence “Regarding the literal interpretation of the whole text of Genesis 1 The Church allowed no leeway to anyone to avoid it so that your accusation that I unjustly condemn people is a falsity.”:
if you read carefully this whole sentence you will see that it states that by The Church's definite and infallible decision no one is allowed any leeway to depart only from the literal meaning of the whole text of Genesis 1.
“The only thing we disagree on, in the main, is when someone has stepped outside of the permissible bounds of the literal interpretation. You take a much more restrictive view than I think the Church does with regards to Genesis 1, based upon the documents and history I have read. You would, then, be quicker to call someone a heretic than I.”
This is your opinion. But on many places my comments prove that the only thing I battle is denial of obligatory literal meaning of the whole text of Genesis 1 and nothing else.
So I most firmly assert with The Church and with you that that there is a room for different views within the obligatory literal interpretation of the whole text of Genesis 1.
So the only true conclusion can be that your opinion about my alleged restrictiveness is, unfortunately, again false.
If one openly denies the obligatory literal interpretation of the whole text of Genesis 1 there is no doubt when and if he overstepped the limit regarding this doctrine of the faith.
It is clear that he did and I don't see how can you be true to yourself and not see exactly the same thing as me: that he overstepped the limit in the matter of faith and thus stepped into a heresy.
And if you read carefully what I wrote you will see that it is written (the following is the sense, not the quote): if you persist in that heresy then you are a heretic.
So I don't call people heretics just because they said or wrote a heresy as one could wrongly understand from your words.
“when science excludes God as the author of nature, they are on dangerous ground.”
That is not science any more because science must never fail and that failed by having something other than God as the author of nature in its teaching..
Chicken, I have nothing against anyone but have everything against any falsity.
And as you can see, unlike some, I correct myself and allow anyone to correct me by the truth.
But no one can scandalize others by accusing me, without anything else or by using a falsity, as a man who writes his private i.e. false views and expect that I will not defend the truth and myself with it.
Not to forget Inocencio: barring his permanent inability to write if he doesn't show up with the replies it is clear that I was right regarding the falsity in the Catechism. You should really take care.

Dear John,
You wrote:
Regarding the literal interpretation of the whole text of Genesis 1 The Church allowed no leeway to anyone to avoid it so that your accusation that I unjustly condemn people is a falsity.
I think I said that the Church held to the literal interpretation of Genesis 1. What we disagree on is what constitutes the literal interpretation. My reading of the PBC document leads me to believe that at least some of the ideas made in these discussion fall within that definition and there is room within the literal interpretation for different viewpoints, such as the Church fathers had and St. Thomas points out. Obviously, anything outside of the literal interpretation is against Church teaching.
The only thing we disagree on, in the main, is when someone has stepped outside of the permissible bounds of the literal interpretation. You take a much more restrictive view than I think the Church does with regards to Genesis 1, based upon the documents and history I have read. You would, then, be quicker to call someone a heretic than I. That is what I meant. If someone claimed that aliens created the universe, I would be standing right beside you in condemning their nonsense (not the person, obviously). If someone wanted to claim that the six days of creation were not twenty-four hour periods, I would have more difficulty in speaking, since the Church does allow for that hypothetical interpretation of the literal sense.
As far as medieval science, I said that their science was empirical. Obviously, they has theories in order to do testing, but they were, for the most part, practical theories, not philosophical theories. Theorizing about the nature of things was relegated to philosophy or natural philosophy (the precursor to modern "science"),as it developed.
Don't get me wrong - when science excludes God as the author of nature, they are on dangerous ground. That certainly contradicts the literal sense of Genesis 1.

3. The Masked Chicken:
“John, I am a scientist. You are picking a definition to suit your purpose. You are, in fact, equivocating. Science, scientia, as St. Thomas called it, had a different meaning than it does in common parlance, today. Scientia means knowledge, in Latin, and St. Thomas simply used the prevailing definition of his day. Science, back then, meant, experimental science, only. Theory was assigned to philosophy.
My use of the term science is the modern sense - the gradual development of knowledge of the universe and its components by method of hypothesis formation and testing. That is the sense I used it in my last sentence.”
You didn't say anything new about science in the modern sense because you mentioned development of knowledge only and confirmed what I wrote: that scientists are free to use theories to come to the knowledge alone. Knowledge is always certain otherwise it is not knowledge but opinion (theory) which can fail and that's precisely what St. Thomas Aquinas says.
Also, since St. Thomas Aquinas says philosophy is science (http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1001.htm#article1, beginning of Objection 1) your statement that theory belonged to philosophy and not to science is a manifest error.
So it is manifest another error of yours which says that scientists in the age of St. Thomas didn't test theories. They did test theories because philosophy is science and, as you said, philosophers had theories. Why would they have theories and, being scientists, not try to test them?
That in the age of St. Thomas theories were only found in philosophical science is a very brave and in no way self-evident statement. So until you present us a proof it can only be your opinion and not a fact. And until then (if it ever happens) your statement is worthless for this discussion.
If you want to assert that science is not all about knowledge only (note that “scientia” is Latin for “knowledge”) but is about knowledge and opinion then you should tell us all how then it is called that where there is word about knowledge only.
“As I pointed out, I accept the literal sense of all of Genesis 1. Did you not understand this?”
It is possible that I misunderstood you.
As you could see some people denied the literal sense of the whole text of Genesis 1 because of non-literal interpretation of some parts of it.
I was fighting only their huge and very dangerous error.
Obviously you were not among them although only in your last comment you clearly say (at least to me) that you accept the literal interpretation of the whole text of Genesis 1.
In general, one doesn't have to know everything about something to know what that something is:
so that certain data (i.e. data from some parts of Genesis 1) are sufficient for knowledge of something (i.e. for knowledge of the literal meaning of the whole text of Genesis 1) so that the missing data (i.e. missing data about non-literal meaning of some parts of Genesis 1) don't matter for the knowledge of that something (i.e. for the knowledge of that literal meaning of the whole text of Genesis 1).
Clearly The Church didn't invent anything new: just applied this well known principle which has often been used, even among the children (Guess what has this? And this? And this? etc.).
It doesn't look nice that you skipped over the first three points in the PBC's decision regarding historicity of the first three chapters of Genesis.
Nevertheless point 6 says it all about the whole text of Genesis 1: “presupposing the literal and historical sense”.
“I repeat, I suspect you do not understand what is meant by the term, "literal sense of Scripture," as the Church defines it and this may be leading to some conclusions on your part that are too restrictive.”
Too restrictive that one is not allowed to contradict The Church's infallible and binding decision that the whole text of Genesis 1 does have literal and historical meaning?
Or you just didn't understood some of my words? Could you please cite me?
“It is not at all clear to me that the Church is as strict in its definitions of certain things to the point where you can properly correct a brother who also loves the Church in the manner in which you are doing. On abortion, the Church has spoken definitively and should you encounter a Catholic who holds a different position, go to it, but always with gentleness and charity. In matters relating to areas where the Church has allowed some leeways, as the document quoted above clearly allows, you err in unjustly condemning a person who uses that freedom.”
As the PBC's statement in the reply to Michael clearly proves these brothers and sisters or “brothers” and “sisters” contradict definite and binding-all decision of The Church and scandalize and endanger souls of other brothers and sisters by falsely stating that the whole text of Genesis 1 doesn't have to be interpreted literally.
Now, when there is a danger nearing I don't know anyone who would gently and soft-spokenly warn people against it. Who would listen to such a warning?
Therefore, charity obliges everyone that, when needed, acts loudly and/or forcefully. Didn't The Church pronounced anathemas to protect the faith and the faithful from evil doctrines?
Regarding the literal interpretation of the whole text of Genesis 1 The Church allowed no leeway to anyone to avoid it so that your accusation that I unjustly condemn people is a falsity.
Sorry Chicken, Catholics i.e. Christians cannot behave like heretics and have contradictory conclusions when self-evident truths and/or definite (infallible) decisions of The Church are available. This is a huge scandal and you know or should know what Jesus said about those who scandalize others. And who is the father of lies and of those who stick to lies.

1. Michael:
As you can see from his reply Michael implies that The Church's statement can be non-infallible i.e. fallible and yet be a definite decision on the matter of faith, confirmed by the pope, promulgated by solemn words ("we declare and decree") and binding all in consience under penalty of mortal (grave) sin.
Michael has showed us who is his father. Just read John 8:44.
2. Inocencio:
Inocencio, you promised replies to the questions. Are they coming or you admit defeat without a battle?

Wow.
Sure is good to know that it was only Rick who was directed by the host to "stick to the subject" of the Big Bang.
I suppose that the host's directive was subjected to sophisticated modern literary criticism techniques, and it was discovered to mean something quite different than a fundamentalist, overly-literalistic view might have suggested.
Cheers!

Dear John,
You wrote:
Therefore, all such theories are fallible opinions related to science but not science itself because they are uncertain due to being founded on hypoteses that are not self evident truths nor are conclusions correctly made from self-evident truths.
John, I am a scientist. You are picking a definition to suit your purpose. You are, in fact, equivocating. Science, scientia, as St. Thomas called it, had a different meaning than it does in common parlance, today. Scientia means knowledge, in Latin, and St. Thomas simply used the prevailing definition of his day. Science, back then, meant, experimental science, only. Theory was assigned to philosophy.
My use of the term science is the modern sense - the gradual development of knowledge of the universe and its components by method of hypothesis formation and testing. That is the sense I used it in my last sentence. If you change my definition to your own, then we wind up talking about two different things and you wind up appearing to give me sentiments I did not state.
As I pointed out, I accept the literal sense of all of Genesis 1. Did you not understand this? Let me repeat: there are certain things which are infallibly defined by the Church (God created the universe, ex nihilo, for example) to be the definitive interpretation of the literal sense of the text and certain things which are not, such as whether or not Yom is to be interpreted as exactly one twenty-four hour day. The metaphorical sense of Yom is, is, is, at this point in history and until the Church should decide otherwise, an acceptable literal interpretation of the text. Is this not clear to you? I really do suspect that you do not know what the Church means when it says, "the literal sense of the text." Please, read St. Thomas, again. I have provided a link, above.
Since you brought up the PBC's document, let me quote from it in both the Latin and English so there will be no misunderstanding as to what it states. I will provide my emphasis in italics [sorry, Jimmy, for the long quote]:
Dubium IV.: Utrum in interpretandis illis horum capitum locis, quos Patres et Doctores diverso modo intellexerunt, quin certi quippiam definitique tradiderint, liceat salvo Ecclesiae iudicio servataque fidei analogia, eam, quam quisque prudenter probaverit, sequi tuerique sententiam? Resp.: Affirmative.
Question IV: Whether in interpreting those passages of these chapters, which the Fathers and Doctors have understood differently, but concerning which they have not taught anything certain and definite, it is permitted, while preserving the judgment of the Church and keeping the analogy of faith, to follow and defend that opinion which everyone has wisely approved? -- Reply: In the affirmative.
Dubium V.: Utrum omnia et singula, verba videlicet et phrases, quae in praedictis capitibus occurrunt, semper et necessario accipienda sint sensu proprio, ita ut ab eo discedere numquam liceat, etiam cum locutiones ipsae manifesto appareant improprie, seu metaphorice vel anthropomorphice usurpatae, et sensum proprium vel ratio tenere prohibeat vel necessitas cogat dimittere? Resp.: Negative.
Question V: Whether all and everything, namely, words and phrases which occur in the aforementioned chapters, are always and necessarily to be accepted in a special sense, so that there may be no deviation from this, even when the expressions themselves manifestly appear to have been taken improperly, or metaphorically or anthropomorphically, and either reason prohibits holding the proper sense, or necessity forces its abandonment? -- Reply: In the negative.
Dubium VI.: Utrum, praesupposito litterali et historico sensu, nonnullorum locorum eorundem capitum interpretatio allegorica et prophetica, praefulgente sanctorum Patrum et Ecclesiae ipsius exemplo, adhiberi sapienter et utiliter possit? Resp.: Affirmative.
Question VI: Whether, presupposing the literal and historical sense, the allegorical and prophetical interpretation of some passages of the same chapters, with the example of the Holy Fathers and the Church herself showing the way, can be wisely and profitably applied? -- Reply: In the affirmative.
Dubium VII.: Utrum, cum in conscribendo primo Geneseos capite non fuerit sacri auctoris mens intimam adspectabilium rerum constitutionem ordinemque creationis completum scientifico more docere, sed potius suae genti tradere notitiam popularem, prout communis sermo per ea ferebat tempora, sensibus et captui hominum accommodatam, sit in horum interpretatione adamussim semperque investiganda scientifici sermonis proprietas? Resp.: Negative.
Question VII: Whether, since in writing the first chapter of Genesis it was not the mind of the sacred author to teach in a scientific manner the detailed constitution of visible things and the complete order of creation, but rather to give his people a popular notion, according as the common speech of the times went, accommodated to the understanding and capacity of men, the propriety of scientific language is to be investigated exactly and always in the interpretation of these? -- Reply: In the negative.
Dubium VIII.: Utrum in illa sex dierum denominatione atque distinctione, de quibus in Geneseos capite primo, sumi possit vox Yôm (dies) sive sensu proprio pro die naturali, sive sensu improprio pro quodam temporis spatio, deque huiusmodi quaestione libere inter exegetas disceptare liceat? Resp.: Affirmative.
Question VIII: Whether in that designation and distinction of six days, with which the account of the first chapter of Genesis deals, the word (dies) can be assumed either in its proper sense as a natural day, or in the improper sense of a certain space of time; and whether with regard to such a question there can be free disagreement among exegetes? -- Reply: In the affirmative.
I am sorry, John. My analysis is correct and it agrees with what the PBC states. I have cited words in their document which almost precisely match what I have written in my posts, above. I repeat, I suspect you do not understand what is meant by the term, "literal sense of Scripture," as the Church defines it and this may be leading to some conclusions on your part that are too restrictive.
I know that you love the Church. It is not at all clear to me that the Church is as strict in its definitions of certain things to the point where you can properly correct a brother who also loves the Church in the manner in which you are doing. On abortion, the Church has spoken definitively and should you encounter a Catholic who holds a different position, go to it, but always with gentleness and charity. In matters relating to areas where the Church has allowed some leeways, as the document quoted above clearly allows, you err in unjustly condemning a person who uses that freedom.
Many people writing in these comboxes have suffered for the Faith (as I am sure you have) more than you will ever know. Please, treat them as brother and sisters, not enemy combatants. I have never, to my knowledge, shown you disrespect or cavalierly dismissed your points. I ask for the same respect for others. St. Paul did say:
1Pe 3:14 -15 But even if you do suffer for righteousness' sake, you will be blessed. Have no fear of them, nor be troubled,
but in your hearts reverence Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to make a defense to any one who calls you to account for the hope that is in you, yet do it with gentleness and reverence;
John, if I am wrong in my arguments, rest assured, I am trying to follow what the Church teaches as best I am able to understand it. I think you are, too. I have presented my understanding as best I can in a spirit of kindness. If I am in error, I will gladly repent. I think, as I read the Church's documents and history, however, at this time, that my interpretation is according to the mind of the Church. If you feel it is not, then instruct me, but you also have the moral obligation to seriously consider my points without jumping too quickly to reply or condemn. I am not your enemy, nor the enemy of the Church. If we both sincerely intend to hold to what the Church teaches, but our research leads us to different conclusion, do not start hurling anathema sit, but lead gently, when possible.
Let us conduct our exchanges in Christian charity. That, too, is a sign.
The Chicken

John,
I didn't say the PBC was non-binding. I said it was not clear that it means what you think it means, but more importantly, that as a non-infallible statement it should be understood in the context of the continued teaching of the Catholic Church which clarifies the latitude Catholics have in this matter -- continued magisterial teaching you prefer to ignore because of your private interpretations.
Your assertion that the Catechism errs in teaching that Muslims worship the same One God as we do is false, but I do not wish to take Jimmy's thread off topic debating it.

3. Michael:
Here is the excerpt of the text of “Praestantia Scripturae” motu proprio which you can read here in its entirety (note: capitalization is mine): http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius10/p10prasc.ht...
“In so doing the Pontiff had in mind as an advantage most adapted for the promotion of study and for the time in which we live that in this Commission there should be the fullest freedom for proposing, examining and judging all opinions whatsoever, and that the Cardinals of the Commission were not to reach any DEFINITE DECISION, as described in the said apostolic letters, before they had examined the arguments in favor and against the question to be decided, omitting nothing which might serve to show in the clearest light the true and genuine state of the Biblical questions under discussion. Only after all this had been done were THE DECISIONS REACHED TO BE SUBMITTED FOR THE APPROVAL OF THE SUPREME PONTIFF and THEN PROMULGATED.
After mature examination and the most diligent deliberations the Pontifical Biblical Commission has happily given certain decisions of a very useful kind for the proper promotion and direction on safe lines of Biblical studies. But we observe that some persons, unduly prone to opinions and methods tainted by pernicious novelties and excessively devoted to the principle of false liberty, which is really immoderate license and in sacred studies proves itself to be a most insidious and a fruitful source of the worst evils against the purity of the faith, have not received and do not receive these decisions with the proper obedience.
Wherefore we find it necessary to declare and to expressly prescribe, and by this our act WE DO DECLARE AND DECREE that all are bound in conscience to submit to the decisions of the Biblical Commission relating to doctrine, which have been given in the past and which shall be given in the future, in the same way as to the decrees of the Roman congregations approved by the Pontiff; nor can all those escape the note of disobedience or temerity, and consequently of GRAVE SIN, who in speech or writing contradict such decisions, and this besides the scandal they give and the other reasons for which they may be responsible before God for other temerities and errors which generally go with such contradictions.”
Definite decision regarding doctrine (faith), approved by the pope, promulgated, binding all faithful in conscience, mortal sin for contradicting it and Michael writes that the PBC's decision on historicity of the first three chapters of Genesis is non-infallible and therefore non-binding.
So as you can see Michael preaches falsities and his own personal views and here is the infallible proof for that.
What is even worse, by defending the lie about Mohammedans in the Catechism he implies that The Church has an authority to turn a lie into the truth. This is a blasphemy worthy of special note.
And then after all his horrendous falsities and the blasphemy Michael accuses me for personal i.e. false views. If falsity is the truth then Michael's accusation is the truth.
Unlike these definite and binding decisions of PBC, the entire Catechism itself has never been a BIG (few hundred pages) definite decision and so this essential element is lacking that the Catechism i.e. ITS WHOLE content be infallible (some statements in it can be infallible).
So the Catechism can contain falsities and as you can see indeed contains a huge one.
It seems that this, by many unnoticed/unknown difference, is what confuses lots of people and makes them swallow abominable lies in the Catechism (lies which obviously contradict reality: e.g. like the lie that Mohammedans believe in The Trinity while they most categorically and most clearly reject The Trinity.) as Catholic (The Church's) teaching which of course they are not.

2. Inocencio:
Of course I don't have it.
But I am really curious to see what your question has to do with the abominable lie in the Catechism.

1. The Masked Chicken:
The Masked Chicken: “I believe that the Church has defined the literal sense of Genesis 1 for certain areas: the creation of the universe, ex nihilo, the orderliness of creation, God as the author of creation.”
No. As you can see from the PBC's decision The Church has forever defined the literal sense for the whole Genesis 1. Please make sure to read the following reply on Michael's comment since its has a lot to do with this issue.
The Masked Chicken: “I am not sure that the Church has defined the literal sense, dogmatically, of some of the other parts, except that they must not contradict what has been dogmatically defined. I think we have some common ground, here.”
Read the point 6 from the PBC's decision and you'll see that not only it must not contradict dogmatically defined truths but also the literal sense of the whole text of Genesis 1.
The Masked Chicken: “My question is: what do you suggest that scientists and mathematicians do? Quit and go home? Is there no room for science in your theology? You wrote:
In courts, whatever has anything unknown in its principle or its essence is, in regular cases, never taken into account as a proof.
What is known in its principle or essence? Man is not known in his essence and yet we accept testimony from men as proof. We do not know the value of Pi in its essence, but we accept it in proofs. We can prove there are an infinity of prime numbers by assuming that there are not (something false) and showing a contradiction exists.
The difference between a court of law and is science that nature never lies, only men do. A court of law needs some additional safeguards that science doesn't need.
I accept whatever is true, as defined by the Church, about Genesis 1. If science is wrong, it will eventually be proven so. The only people who might be scandalized are people who hold science as an absolute and not man's poor clumsy striving to understand the universe God made.”
According to St. Thomas Aquinas (see here: http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3001.htm#article5)
“I answer that, All science is derived from self-evident and therefore "seen" principles” and “Because science is incompatible with opinion about the same object simply, for the reason that science demands that its object should be deemed impossible to be otherwise, whereas it is essential to opinion, that its object should be deemed possible to be otherwise.”
while in the question in which these statements are replies to the objections there is this definition of science (St. Thomas?): “Science is certain knowledge of a demonstrated conclusion through its demonstration”.
Now, The Masked Chicken, how those Bing-Bang and other famous theories based on undemonstrable and unproven hypoteses fit in with this clearest definition of science?
Therefore, all such theories are fallible opinions related to science but not science itself because they are uncertain due to being founded on hypoteses that are not self evident truths nor are conclusions correctly made from self-evident truths.
Of course, no one denies the right to scientists to have their opinions i.e. hypoteses.
But until they are not proven i.e. demonstrable from self-evident principles i.e. truths they are not science which binds by the truth but a mere private and thus in no way binding opinions.
The principle of a crime examined in court is “Who?”, “What?”, “Why?”, “When?” etc. Principle and esence are words normally used in ordinary speech. I admit the sentence should have been better made. I apologize to you and to others for it not being clear enough.
So, from what has been written so far it is evident that your opinion about science is not correct: science is always absolutely true, absolutely infallible and absolutely demonstrable because if not then it is not science but a fallible and thus in no way binding opinion.
So, what schools and media teach and preach is often false. Take care.
I am glad that you accept whatever The Church defined regarding Genesis 1. It just has to be proved by deeds (writing, speaking).
There is only one theology which is only Catholic as there is only one Gospel which is only Catholic. Everything else is not theology.
But as there is only one Gospel according to St. Matthew, St. Mark etc. there is only one theology according to numerous Catholic theologians. But since all truth is from The Truth – Jesus Christ no theologian preaches anything of his own but only what is Christ's as Christ gave him.
This is about “my theology”, “your theology”, “St. Thomas Aquinas theology” etc.

Anybody who wants to can read whichever points they want in the PBC statement here:
http://www.catholicscripture.net/enchiridion/genes...
It is not clear that the PBC means the same thing that John does when he insists on the "literal" meaning of the text, and, moreover, the Church's position on Genesis has been clarified by further Church documents discussing Genesis in the century since the (non-infallible) 1909 PBC statement was issued.
Since John wants us to accept his personal views instead of the Church's actual teaching, as evidenced by his dissent from the Church's teaching documents such as the Catechism, he will have to provide his own interpretation and commentary.
As for me, I will stick with the Magisterium of the Catholic Church and leave this discussion at that.

John,
I will happily respond to your questions but ask the courtesy of an answer to mine first.
Do you believe that you personally have the authority to define and declare what is and what is not Catholic teaching?
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

Dear John,
We both agree that the literal sense of Scripture is correct. I believe that the Church has defined the literal sense of Genesis 1 for certain areas: the creation of the universe, ex nihilo, the orderliness of creation, God as the author of creation. I think you are on safe ground with these assertions. I am not sure that the Church has defined the literal sense, dogmatically, of some of the other parts, except that they must not contradict what has been dogmatically defined. I think we have some common ground, here.
My question is: what do you suggest that scientists and mathematicians do? Quit and go home? Is there no room for science in your theology? You wrote:
In courts, whatever has anything unknown in its principle or its essence is, in regular cases, never taken into account as a proof.
What is known in its principle or essence? Man is not known in his essence and yet we accept testimony from men as proof. We do not know the value of Pi in its essence, but we accept it in proofs. We can prove there are an infinity of prime numbers by assuming that there are not (something false) and showing a contradiction exists.
The difference between a court of law and is science that nature never lies, only men do. A court of law needs some additional safeguards that science doesn't need.
I accept whatever is true, as defined by the Church, about Genesis 1. If science is wrong, it will eventually be proven so. The only people who might be scandalized are people who hold science as an absolute and not man's poor clumsy striving to understand the universe God made.
The Chicken

3. The Masked Chicken:
As long as interpretation of certain passages of Genesis 1 doesn't contradict the literal interpretation of the whole text of Genesis 1 no Catholic should have anything against it, including me.
People should now that faith and The Church, due to being from God Who cannot lie nor can be lied, teach the truth i.e. what really is while all these theories, no matter how flamboyantly they look, teach either falsities (e.g. theory of evolution) or unproven and unknown speculations which could easily be false.
In courts, whatever has anything unknown in its principle or its essence is, in regular cases, never taken into account as a proof. Clearly reasonable since lie can have true part and the unknown part can be a false one.
In databases, when records are to be selected where their field has a value (by which a condition of selection becomes true i.e. satisfied) it is the law that whenever value in the field is unknown i.e. there is no value in the field the whole record is not selected as if the condition of selection became false i.e. unsatisfying. Clearly reasonable since condition of selection must be met and it cannot be met when value is unknown i.e. there is no value to be tested.
But theories founded on unknown and unproven hypoteses are taken as if they were known and proven i.e. laws. And that is called “science”. Clearly unreasonable since it can easily happen that what is spoken of as existent doesn't exist and that would then be a sin of presumptuous lying. And if they in anything contradict The Church then there are also added sins of infidelity and of blasphemy as if The Holy Spirit and The Church taught a falsity.

2. Inocencio:
“John,
"Regarding Catechism: it lies that Mohammedans adore with us(!) the one and only God (point 841), The Trinity of course. No one intelligent believes a liar."
Do you believe that you personally have the authority to define and declare what is and what is not Catholic teaching?”
Catechisms should directly (by literal meaning of their content) teach the faith all kinds of people, learned and unlearned. Shouldn't they, Inocencio?
Now, tell us, Inocencio, do Mohammedans believe in the one and only God, The Holy Trinity?
If they don't believe in The Holy Trinity (as it is a fact) then how do they adore God in Whom they don't believe, Inocencio?
And would you explain to us why then The Catechism falsely tells that they adore God Whom they even don't know?
Would you explain to us how I defined and declared what is and what is not Catholic teaching by merely stating the obvious truth that there is the falsity in the Catechism?
Would you imply a blasphemy that Catholic teaching can be an obvious contradiction i.e. a falsity like this that Mohammedans adore God Whom they don't know? Don't you know that in each and every contradiction there is always a falsity (note: Do you see what is the problem when two opinions disagree? At least one opinion is certainly a falsity. Hence, pluralism of opinions should be allowed only when the truth is not available.)?
And would you explain to us why do you break two commandments of God:
(1) “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart and with thy whole soul and with thy whole MIND (note: emphasis mine).” (Matthew 22:37)
Who doesn't know that Mohammedans don't believe in The Holy Trinity? And you still dare to accept such a falsity without thinking? Is that loving of God by your whole mind?
(2) “And what I say to you, I say to all: Watch.” (Mark 13:37)
Is your acceptance of such an obvious falsity watching, Inocencio?

1. Thomas E. Vaughan:
Whatever is in The Holy Scripture is revealed by God i.e. is sacred no matter how profane it looks to you. If you deny that then you are heretic, outside The Church and salvation.
And, according to the faith and even ordinary human logic, it is absolutely forbidden to deal with sacred things in a profane way.
So, TEV, whenever The Holy Scripture is involved nothing can be profane.
Instead of giving up your unbelievable heresies (unbelievable since you err in basic things in which even the unlearned wouldn't err) you try to justify yourself and so embarrass yourself more and more, falling deeper and deeper into abyss of sin.
Since medicines for grave diseases (as yours is) are almost always unpleasant so are my words.
Whole text of Genesis 1 must always have literal meaning (1) and literal meaning must always be its primary meaning(2).
Whether the whole text of Genesis 1 can also have a non-literal meaning as a secondary meaning is unimportant:
because (1) if at any time you are able to deny literal meaning to the whole text of Genesis 1 then of necessity at that time you CAN deny literal meaning to each and every particular thing in it.
And then “God's creation” in Genesis 1 CAN in fact be not God's creation but only a fable for the unlearned etc.
(2) If literal meaning of the whole text of Genesis 1 is not its primary meaning then the whole text of Genesis 1 becomes a sort of Jesus' parable (which also has literal meaning but as secondary meaning) so that God's creation as being the part of such a “parable” cannot be a matter of faith.
Vatican I defined God's creation as a matter of faith so that literal meaning of the whole text of Genesis 1 cannot be its secondary meaning i.e. Genesis 1 cannot be a parable and is not a parable.
So I repeat, some particular things in Genesis 1 CAN have non-literal (but always sacred!) meaning but the whole text of Genesis 1 must always have sacred and literal meaning as its primary meaning.
Also, ask Michael to show us and you points 1, 2, 3 and 6 from PBC's decision on historicity of the first three chapters of Genesis if you don't understand what I wrote.

My last two posts show just how silly, stupid, and prideful I can be when I put my mind to it. Sorry, all.
The Chicken

I'm back.
The first sentence in Genesis is:
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
The Hebrew is more telling:
בְּרֵאשִׁית בָּרָא אֱלֹהִים אֵת הַשָּׁמַיִם וְאֵת הָאָֽרֶץ׃
[Transliterated, right to left]:
'erets 'eth shamayim 'eth bara' 'elohiym re'shiyth
Now, the verb, bara' is in the perfect aspect, which indicates a completed act. The first sentence really says: In the beginning of everything, it was God who finished the creation of Heaven and Earth. The totality of the creative act of making everything was done by God and is finished.
This is called, First Creation, in biblical analysis. The second sentence is part of it:
And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness [was] upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
This is interesting in that, once again, the verb aspect is perfect. This indicates a finished act that left something without form and void. Basically, when God first created the earth as a finished act, it was without form, but it was finished as the earth in this state. This could indicate a vacuum state which would eventually become the earth in potentia. So, the first two lines are a summary of the process of creation. God sets things up and finishes them.
Now, things change. Suddenly, with the next line and for the rest of Chapter One, the aspect of the verbs change almost entirely to the imperfect aspect - a work, suddenly in progress.
And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
This was a continuing light, an unfinished light. This is when creation starts to come into play as a process. Prior to this was a description of what God accomplished before he set things into motion. This could be the creation of a primordial atom or a brane or something else. The words are unclear.
Now God makes light. This could be the formation of electromagnetic forces after the Big Bang. Notice that it says that God called the light day and the darkness night - God, not man. This was his private description to himself that would eventually be adopted by man.
Next, God created a firmament in the midst of the waters. This could be the formation of matter. The waters could be the original vaccum state.
And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which [were] under the firmament from the waters which [were] above the firmament: and it was so.
And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry [land] appear: and it was so.
And God called the dry [land] Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that [it was] good.
Dividing the waters from the waters could indicate the separation of matter and anti-matter.
The word Heaven does not mean Heaven, the place where God dwells, since presumably, that existed before creation, but rather a firm separator or dome. This could indicate some aspect of the separation of matter and anti-matter, such as charge separation.
Next, things coalesced into land. This could be the formation of matter in the solar system leading to the formation of the earth, proper. Then, water condensed.
My purpose here is not to say this is what happened. It is simply to point out that words like water and darkness mean something in the original, but do these mean the same as the common words? We don't know. They could, but we do not know. Vacuum states exit in the laboratory. The Church fathers could not have known about them. If they had, would their analysis incorporated, them? Interesting question.
This is all hypothetical and just things to confuse the discussion :)
The Chicken

Dear John.
I certainly agree that the Church Fathers and Doctors have unanimously agreed that the literal sense of scripture should hold, but there is NO uniformity on what the literal sense means in certain cases, including the first chapter of Genesis. As St. Thomas Aquinas demonstrated, there can be legitimate and different interpretations of the literal sense of the text. He gave at least one example in the Summa commentary on Genesis. There are also many varied interpretations of certain passages in Genesis 1 that have been made by the Church Fathers. While the literal sense is true, there has been some difficulty in understanding what that sense is.
The literal sense of a text, according to St. Thomas, is the "signification of things in words." Words must signify the thing. What the thing is is sometimes hard to represent in words.
Let me give you an interpretation of Genesis that is true to the literal sense, but supports the Big Bang (Jimmy's original request):
First, there are no verb tenses in Hebrew. Hebrew verbs are not bound to time, they are bound to action. Hebrew has two "aspects": perfect, for completed actions, and imperfect for continuing or unfinished actions.
Rats - I have to go. I have a class in ten minutes. I have to finish grading exams. More, later.
The Chicken

John,
"Regarding Catechism: it lies that Mohammedans adore with us(!) the one and only God (point 841), The Trinity of course. No one intelligent believes a liar."

Do you believe that you personally have the authority to define and declare what is and what is not Catholic teaching?
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

John, it seems inevitable that I am embarrassing myself all over the
place. :^) I hope that you will be charitable.
What do you suppose is meant by "profane"? In this case it simply means
"not sacred".
It certainly seems possible for one (without lying) to admit
(1) that for God to create things out of nothing is a sacred assertion
but
(2) that in the Hexahemeron many of the details of the order of His
creatures in time and space do not involve sacred assertions.
Even the second admission would allow one to admit that the *fact* of
God's ordering the creatures is a sacred assertion, just not the details
of that ordering.
You appear to insist that even the particular ordering of creatures
within time and space, as indicated in the Hexahemeron, is a sacred
subject.
An alternative approach to the necessity of the truth of a literal sense
of the Hexahemeron would be to argue that, even if the subject be
profane, the sacred author intended to make detailed literal assertions
on the matter. Because the sacred author is inerrant in everything that
he intends to assert, we would then be bound to admit the truth of some
literal sense of the Hexahemeron.
So it would appear that, for one to admit the possibility that a literal
sense of the Hexahemeron is not a true sense, one must hold both
(a) that the Hexahemeron does not (at least not in its entirety) deal
with a sacred subject and
(b) that the sacred author did not intend to make literally true profane
assertions.

Michael, would you please cite us points 1, 2, 3 and 6 from the PBC's statement regarding historicity of the first three chapters of Genesis?
Regarding Catechism: it lies that Mohammedans adore with us(!) the one and only God (point 841), The Trinity of course. No one intelligent believes a liar.
Six days with 24 days per day is not required but six "days" are required. Otherwise The Holy Scripture would lie. If you want to blaspheme that The Holy Scripture lies about six "days" then just do it.
TEV: "It seems to me that the crux of the present debate with John and Rick
has to do with whether a given passage concerns a profane subject."
God's creation to be a profane subject? This is a lie plain and simple and if you stick to it you are a liar, Thomas E. Vaughan. You shouldn't have embarrassed yourself so much.

One addendum to my previous post:
As the PBC and other sources prove, the Church teaches that each sacred
author of Scripture is inerrant in everything that he intended to
assert, not only on sacred matters but *also* on profane matters.
If an authentic scientific development were to raise doubt about the
literal truth of a Scriptural passage pertaining to a profane subject,
where the Fathers were all agreed on the truth of the literal sense of
the same passage, then for one to admit the possibility that the literal
sense is *not* a true sense is the same thing as for one to claim that
the Fathers misjudged the what the sacred author intended to assert.
(This is reminiscent of what Bellarmine wrote about the Galileo affair.)
That is, it would seem that there is room for an authentic development
in Scriptural interpretation, wherein on a profane matter we might
through reason and observation of the natural world be able over time to
rule out certain theories about the intent of the sacred author.
(Though, to be fair, Bellarmine was dubious about whether there would
ever be such an authentic scientific development.)
It seems to me that the crux of the present debate with John and Rick
has to do with whether a given passage concerns a profane subject. Even
Trent, which predates Galileo, indicates that there is a difference
between the sacred and the profane when it comes to the interpretation
of Scripture.
Is there a test that can be applied to ascertain whether a given passage
relates to a sacred subject?

John,
The Catechism states:
"Scripture presents the work of the Creator symbolically as a succession of six days of divine "work," concluded by the "rest" of the seventh day." (CCC 337)
Moreover, paragraph 342 indicates that the "six days" symbolically express the hierarchy of creatures. So the six days as a chronology does not seem to be a required teaching of the Church.
You said: "So, seeking The Church's decision on an issue first is the only way to escape contradicting The Church and eternal, fiery and very painful problems due to that."
And that's exactly what we are all trying to do -- to determine the Church's teaching on this subject. But we're going to need more than your assertions. It seems that the Church does not teach what you seem to think it teaches.
The PBC statement says:
"328. 5. All and each of the parts of Genesis, namely, the single words and phrases, in these chapters must always and of necessity be interpreted in a proper literal sense, so that it is never lawful to deviate from it, even when expressions are manifestly used figuratively, that is, metaphorically or anthropomorphically, and when reason forbids us to hold, or necessity impels us to depart from, the proper literal sense.
Answer: No."
Many scientists believe that "necessity impels them" to accept the scientific evidence for Big Bang cosmology, and according to Church teaching on the interpretation of Genesis, there doesn't seem to be any contradiction between that particular scientific theory and scriptural truth. In other words, one can accept the "literal and historical" interpretation of Genesis in the sense required by the Church and also Big Bang cosmology without contradiction.

The Council of Trent puts it like this
(http://history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct04.html):

Furthermore, in order to restrain petulant spirits, [the Council]
decrees, that no one, relying on his own skill, shall---in matters of
faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of Christian
doctrine---wresting the sacred Scripture to his own senses, presume to
interpret the said sacred Scripture
[a] contrary to that sense which holy mother Church---whose it is to
judge of the true sense and interpretation of the holy Scriptures---hath
held and doth hold; or even
[b] contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers;
even though such interpretations were never (intended) to be at any time
published.

I have inserted three items in square brackets for clarity, and I have
inserted some line breaks also.
According to this, the "unanimous consent of the Fathers" bars any
contrary interpretation of Scripture "in matters of faith, and of morals
pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine".
On the one hand, if the order in which things are created in the
Hexahemeron were such a matter of faith, then Trent would seem to agree
with John.
On the other hand, if the order in which things are created in the
Hexahemeron were *not* such a matter of faith, then Trent would seem
*not* to support John's point.
Although I should be happy to change my mind if someone could
demonstrate that the Church teaches the necessity of the order for the
Catholic Faith, I frankly don't see how the order of creation in the
Hexahemeron is a matter of faith.
The Fathers surely acted prudently, as everyone should, in admitting as
much as possible the truth of the literal sense and in assuming the
truth of the literal sense whenever there be no good reason to doubt it.
Moreover, regardless of the truth of the literal sense, one must
apprehend the literal sense in order to ascertain the non-literal
meanings in a passage.
However, when a reason to doubt the literal truth of some words in
Scripture arises on a profane subject, then we should be free at least
to admit the possibility that the literal sense is not a true sense. As
Ott writes in _Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma_, the Fathers when writing
about a profane subject in Scripture are not defending the Faith but
acting as private scientists. If there can be authentic developments in
science, then we should have some room to differ from the Fathers on
profane subjects in scripture, for the Fathers had no access to those
developments.

Michael: “The Church Fathers are not morally unanimous on the topic of a literalistic interpretation of Genesis. See here, as written by our own host, Jimmy Akin:
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2003/0301bt.asp
"Though the majority of Church Fathers took the six days of creation as being six literal days, there was not moral unanimity among them on this question. In addition later Catholic authorities (e.g., Thomas Aquinas; see ST 1:74:2) recognized a diversity of permissible interpretations.
Though the magisterium also has not made any definitive claims regarding the interpretation of the six days, it has given some non-defined statements on this subject. In 1909, the Pontifical Biblical Commission (PBe) issued a series of responses to questions on Genesis 1-3. Among these, the PBC answered the following questions:
"In the interpretation of those passages in the chapters [i.e., Gen. 13] which the Fathers and doctors understood in different manners without proposing anything certain and definite, is it lawful. . . to follow and defend the opinion that commends itself to one?" (Concerning the Historical Character of the First Three Chapters of Genesis [June 30, 1909] 4).”
Literalistic interpretation of Genesis 1-3 is not equal to literalistic interpretation of some of its passages e.g. those mentioning the six days of creation.
The Fathers and Doctors are unanimous that Genesis 1 presents the order, in time, of God's creation of everything. And that is precisely what literal meaning of Genesis gives.
Various interpretations of some words, expressions or passages of Genesis 1 don't at all affect literal and historical meaning of Genesis 1.
This is the reason why nobody was, is or will be able to give a reasonable answer to the question I posed. Deny literal meaning of Genesis 1 and of necessity God's creation, its order, its occurrence in time etc. is denied (made a fable) and with it Christian (=Catholic) faith.
Science must always go hand in hand with The Church: the former searches for the truth, the latter is the pillar and ground of the truth (1 Timothy 3:15).
If human efforts result in a contradiction to any teaching of The Church then it is a clear falsity and so in no way a scientific result which is always the truth (e.g. theory of evolution denies God's creation and due to that false principle cannot anyhow be true).
As to translations and transliterations: generally speaking (not only regarding Genesis 1 but regarding The Bible) it is true that translations and transliterations are more or less imperfect or sometimes even intentionally wrong.
If they are imperfections then the sense is not destroyed but is only weakened.
But by aid of God's grace even from a weakened perspective one can get what God intended that all men receive.
Thus, literal meaning of Genesis 1 can be captured even through imperfect translations and transliterations.
Hope that everybody of good will now understand what is meant by literal meaning (interpretation) of Genesis 1 and that its denial is nothing less than the loss of faith, membership in The Church and salvation.
This truth regarding interpretation of Genesis 1 and the consequences of contradicting The Church is applicable to all the other matters of faith or morals challenged by the world (especially world of “science”).
So, seeking The Church's decision on an issue first is the only way to escape contradicting The Church and eternal, fiery and very painful problems due to that.

Hopefully, this will work (this might be a Typepad limitation)
Link 1
Link 2
Link 3
from my post, above.

My links and markups do not appear in my post? Anyone know why not?
The Chicken

Dear John,
The underlying question is: what is really meant by the literal sense of Scripture. If you want to be technical, since the literal sense has to do with the "signification of words in things" (St. Thomas Aquinas's understanding), then the only proper words to use are exactly and only the original Hebrew and Semitic texts. Anything else involves transliterations and translations which might introduce corruptions into the signification of the words. We see this in such modern translations as the RSV and the NIV which use different words to stand for the original Greek and the words carry subtly different meanings in line with the theology of the transcribers. Thus, RSV translates paradosis in 2 Timothy 2:15, as tradition, but the NIV translates it as teachings. One translation is obviously closer to the Catholic sense than the other.
The Church Fathers used many different translations of Genesis. Some used Old Hebrew; some used the Massoretic text; some used the LXX; some used the Old Roman; some used the Vulgate. Are all of the words translated the same and are these translations the exact signification of the original text?
Also, there are passages of the Old Testament Hebrew which are unclear in the sense of the words (we have no way of translating them) or in the structure of the text (we don't know why certain passages are repeated). I do not know if any of these passages are in Genesis, but the point is that to claim the literal sense of the text, one must know what the text says.
The issue of literalness of Scripture is a lot more subtle than you present it.
Here is a paper on St. Thomas Aquinas's understanding of the literalness of Scripture. St. Thomas allows for the possibility that the same passage might allow for different interpretations, even in the literal sense. The literal sense does not mean the one and only sense. St. Thomas also holds metaphors to be contained in the literal sense, by the way.
Here is the relevant passage from the Summa Theologica, itself. It does not contain all of St. Thomas's thoughts (see the other paper for a more complete citation), but it is a start.
In fact, St. Thomas points out the fact there is not uniformity among the various interpreters of Genesis in his discussion of the Six Days of Creation in the Summa:
Reply to Objection 1. The word earth is taken differently in this passage by Augustine, and by other writers. Augustine holds that by the words "earth" and "water," in this passage. primary matter itself is signified on account of its being impossible for Moses to make the idea of such matter intelligible to an ignorant people, except under the similitude of well-known objects. Hence he uses a variety of figures in speaking of it, calling it not water only, nor earth only, lest they should think it to be in very truth water or earth. At the same time it has so far a likeness to earth, in that it is susceptible of form, and to water in its adaptability to a variety of forms. In this respect, then, the earth is said to be "void and empty," or "invisible and shapeless," that matter is known by means of form. Hence, considered in itself, it is called "invisible" or "void," and its potentiality is completed by form; thus Plato says that matter is "place" [Timaeus, quoted by Aristotle, Phys. iv, text. 15. But other holy writers understand by earth the element of earth, and we have said (1) how, in this sense, the earth was, according to them, without form. [emphasis, mine]

The Church Fathers are not morally unanimous on the topic of a literalistic interpretation of Genesis. See here, as written by our own host, Jimmy Akin:
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2003/0301bt.asp
"Though the majority of Church Fathers took the six days of creation as being six literal days, there was not moral unanimity among them on this question. In addition later Catholic authorities (e.g., Thomas Aquinas; see ST 1:74:2) recognized a diversity of permissible interpretations.
Though the magisterium also has not made any definitive claims regarding the interpretation of the six days, it has given some non-defined statements on this subject. In 1909, the Pontifical Biblical Commission (PBe) issued a series of responses to questions on Genesis 1-3. Among these, the PBC answered the following questions:
"In the interpretation of those passages in the chapters [i.e., Gen. 13] which the Fathers and doctors understood in different manners without proposing anything certain and definite, is it lawful. . . to follow and defend the opinion that commends itself to one?" (Concerning the Historical Character of the First Three Chapters of Genesis [June 30, 1909] 4).
"In the designation and distinction of the six days mentioned in the first chapter of Genesis may the word yom (day) be taken either in the literal sense for the natural day or in an applied sense for a certain space of time, and may this question be the subject of free discussion among exegetes?" (ibid., 8).
The PBC's affirmative replies to both these questions established a significant measure of freedom for the interpretation of the six days. In particular, the answer to the latter question asserted room for the day-age hypothesis.
Further liberty on the question was granted when Pope Pius XII approved a reply from the PBC that effectively nullified the restrictive.aspects of the PBe's 1909 replies, stating: "These replies are in no way a hindrance to further truly scientific examination of these problems in accordance with the results acquired in the last forty years" (Letter to Cardinal Suhard [1948]).

bill912, the evidence that The Church has infallibly decided on mandatory literal interpretation of Genesis 1 is unanimous (or virtually unanimous) literal interpretation of Genesis 1 by The Fathers and Doctors of The Church which constitutes infallible teaching of The Church.
Because, if they are wrong then The Church is wrong and The Holy Spirit, Who leads The Church, is wrong. Two blasphemies.
bill912: “since he still declines to show any evidence to back up what he said, I conclude that we are dealing with someone who is dishonest. I'm done.”?
Why are you so impatient and nervous, bill912, if you are on the right side?
So, now when there is the evidence asked by bill 912 is there anyone who can give us a reasonable answer to the question?

I didn't change the text, I highlighted a key word. But, since he still declines to show any evidence to back up what he said, I conclude that we are dealing with someone who is dishonest. I'm done.

"...then you will prove me wrong..."
I never said you were wrong; I asked you to provide evidence to back up your statement "that Genesis *must* be interpreted in literal way." I asked you to prove yourself right.

bill912: " "...The Church has decided not only that the literal meaning of Genesis is true but also, what of necessity follows (or precedes), that Genesis *must* be interpreted in literal way."
Evidence that the Church teaches this, please?"
Note that I didn't write "*must* be interpreted" as bill912 "quoted" me but "must be interpreted". If someone is quoted then there shouldn't be any change in the quote without an explicit note stating it.
The truth is that this incorrect change in my text and the question following it made me think that bill912 doesn't believe in mandatory literal interpretation of Genesis 1 but now I admit it could be my mistake.
If it was then I apologize to you, bill912.
Now, let's go back to the question. Is there a reasonable answer to it?

I didn't expect him to show any evidence.
"...my unjust and rash accusation of you as holding a heretical opinion..."
What opinion? I haven't expressed one.

bill912, TimJ etc. if you give us a reasonable reply to the key question: "Otherwise, how would The Holy Scripture literally tell that God created heaven and earth if at any time Genesis 1 has only a non-literal interpretation?" then you will prove me wrong and I will admit my unjust and rash accusation of you as holding a heretical opinion and apologize to you.
But if you don't find a reasonable reply to that question then you will prove yourself as indeed holding a heretical opinion and will have to get rid of it if you want to be saved.
OFF TOPIC MATERIAL REMOVED.

Feel free to talk in a general manner about how to interpret Genesis.
I just don't want this thread to get taken over by a geocentrism debate since that's not what it's about. I may do a post at another time on geocentrism specifically and let people have at it on that subject.

"Just out of curiosity, does the topic of Biblical literacy meet Jimmy's guidelines for discussion?"
See, I am not sure of that either, unless a literal reading of Genesis would (for some) rule out the idea of a Big Bang altogether.
That's why I continued in that vein, even though it may be encouraging a drift away from the main topic. I can see how the general topic of "how to read Genesis" would dovetail with the main post, but it might also open the door to private theories and combox anathemas. If that is the case, I'd be happy to drop it.

That should be, "Biblical literalness."
The Chicken

Just out of curiosity, does the topic of Biblical literacy meet Jimmy's guidelines for discussion? If, so I would like to enter the discussion, but I am wary that this topic might bring us back to geocentrism. Comments?
The Chicken

I wrote, above:
If the earth was formless.
That should be: If the earth were formless.
The Grammar Chicken

"Parables (from Jesus' speeches) have nothing to do with Genesis 1 when truthfulness of literal meaning of Genesis 1 is the issue. So, this was also incorrectly done by TimJ."
You assert this without any evidence or explanation as to why it MUST be so. You'll have to do better than that.
Is Jesus allowed to tell symbolic stories (according to this hyper-literal reading of scripture), or must all his parables be based on real accounts of historical people/events?
You don't see any way this question could have any relevance to a discussion of Genesis 1?
Is there any way you could understand someone saying that Jesus' parables were true (truth itself, in fact) and yet not necessarily true in a dry, literal, factual sense?

"...The Church has decided not only that the literal meaning of Genesis is true but also, what of necessity follows (or precedes), that Genesis *must* be interpreted in literal way."
Evidence that the Church teaches this, please?

TimJ: " "What seems contrary to Church teaching, however, is to assert
that everyone must hold the literal meaning of Gen 1 as true."
I would phrase it this way;
"What seems contrary to Church teaching, however, is to assert
that everyone must hold that Genesis 1 must be interpreted in a literal way (like an encyclopedia entry)." "
Rephrasing was incorrectly done: the rephrased (first) statement is about truthfulness of the literal meaning while the rephrase (the second statement) is about kind of interpretation to be used and not about its truthfulness.
So heresy mentioned by TEV remains.
By the way, even the rephrase by TimJ is a falsity: yes, The Church has decided not only that the literal meaning of Genesis is true but also, what of necessity follows (or precedes), that Genesis must be interpreted in literal way.
Otherwise, how would The Holy Scripture literally tell that God created heaven and earth if at any time Genesis 1 has only a non-literal interpretation? TEV, TimJ?
It seems that TEV and TimJ don't understand that truth always binds all and never only some.
Parables (from Jesus' speeches) have nothing to do with Genesis 1 when truthfulness of literal meaning of Genesis 1 is the issue. So, this was also incorrectly done by TimJ.
TEV: If you knew Catholic faith (i.e. constant teachings of The Church from its beginning, as I explained above) well you would find as many instances of falsity as you like in books with imprimatur.
So imprimatur has never been an infallible guarantee of Catholic teachings but has always been taken in good faith that the men responsible for it have done their job correctly.
And what if they haven't done their job correctly?

TimJ: " "What seems contrary to Church teaching, however, is to assert
that everyone must hold the literal meaning of Gen 1 as true."
I would phrase it this way;
"What seems contrary to Church teaching, however, is to assert
that everyone must hold that Genesis 1 must be interpreted in a literal way (like an encyclopedia entry)." "
Rephrasing was incorrectly done: the rephrased (first) statement is about truthfulness of the literal meaning while the rephrase (the second statement) is about kind of interpretation to be used and not about its truthfulness.
So heresy mentioned by TEV remains.
By the way, even the rephrase by TimJ is a falsity: yes, The Church has decided not only that the literal meaning of Genesis is true but also, what of necessity follows (or precedes), that Genesis must be interpreted in literal way.
Otherwise, how would The Holy Scripture literally tell that God created heaven and earth if at any time Genesis 1 has only a non-literal interpretation? TEV, TimJ?
It seems that TEV and TimJ don't understand that truth always binds all and never only some.
Parables (from Jesus' speeches) have nothing to do with Genesis 1 when truthfulness of literal meaning of Genesis 1 is the issue. So, this was also incorrectly done by TimJ.
TEV: If you knew Catholic faith (i.e. constant teachings of The Church from its beginning, as I explained above) well you would find as many instances of falsity as you like in books with imprimatur.
So imprimatur has never been an infallible guarantee of Catholic teachings but has always been taken in good faith that the men responsible for it have done their job correctly.
And what if they haven't done their job correctly?

I have placed a calendar note in my iCal

1. Following the admirable Chicken, I too apologize for my part in
dragging things off topic.
2. Recently, however, I had been trying to develop the conversation in a
way that does seem relevant. Rick insisted at least once that the
unanimity of the Fathers on any matter of scriptural interpretation
renders the matter settled, or something like that. His particular
point was the supposed unanimity of the Fathers on the literal truth
of the Gen 1. It appears as though the motivation for the defense of
the geocentric view is this theory of scriptural interpretation.
However, because this theory bears on whether any non-literal view of
Gen 1 can be permitted, I think that this is decent matter for
discussion here.
3. Chicken, with regard to your questions, I have almost nothing to
offer in terms of exegetical skill or training, but I have read that
a large body of water is a symbol for chaos in the cultures of the
ancient Middle East. I don't remember where I picked that up, but
made an impression and stuck with me.
Also, if you think about it, although water is tangible, it is also
formless in a certain sense. Or rather it seems to take the form of
its container but have no intrinsic form of its own.
From the point of view of a particular culture, water might symbolize
chaos, but everyone can see how water symbolizes a certain kind of
formlessness.