BenYachov: whatever.  (Quote)

Is that your thought or did the elders give it to you?

BenYachov: >I feel fine, but I want better for you.I reply: I am overcome by the compassion one such as you has shown a repressed homosexual like me who fellates horses.  (Quote)

I was highlighting the vacuity of your rhetoric.

Its easy to do the reverse as well, and argue to a literalist, that they ought to adopt a more allegorical or symbolic view of Genesis, like the Roman Catholics. This is generally a similarly perilous can of worms, as it forces one to don the clothing of a Catholic, and argue on their behalf.

I suggest avoiding both situations. One can easily argue against either position without having to resort to other religious arguments.

I reply: I am overcome by the compassion one such as you has shown a repressed homosexual like me who fellates horses.

I’ll post some of my thoughts over at your blog on the issues you have raised. Cheers.

The tragedy is that for some, call them a sheep for long enough and they become one.

An institution that is is riddled with systemic paedophilia, espouses no contraception where aids is pandemic and is wealthy beyond belief while a third of the world starves.

Have a long hard look at yourself and your institution.

No. I’m assessing what was written in order and timescale. Factual. If you’re writing about origins, you should probably get how it happened right. And Genesis (both versions!) is terribly wrong. If you want to play games about the meaning of “Yom”, the order is still wrong. Let’s assume its something other than a journalistic account. Then what is? what is its purpose? What is its message?

“Accept you have made no summary or primary arguments…”

The fact the “genesis is a crock” was discovered before my examination of the same is hardly my fault.

“That I clearly guessed correctly must really intimidate you.” The fact you wrote this shows you’re a repressed homosexual who fellates horses. Its a crappy narrative trick, but at least mine was funny.

Now trundle back to teh people who tell you what to think. or bring one to me, for you are a drone.

I reply: Actually what you are doing here is assuming without proof or rational argument it’s an empirically scientific account of creation. I don’t make that assumption nor have you shown me reason to think otherwise thus your argument is meaningless. I’ll chalk it up to intellectual laziness.

>Ben, Genesis is an account of creation, that is wrong, in both scale and order.

I reply: What kind of account? A scientific account? Philosophical? Allegorical? Typological? I’m assuming at this point because of your inability speak plainly you mean scientific. Ok then YOU STILL have to prove Genesis was meant to be a scientific account. Let’s see your evidence. Clearly you don’t know enough to make the case & are having a meltdown because of it.

>well if there is this unknowable knowledge that exists without detection, your wasting both our times.

What kind of detection? Because one can have other than empirical knowledge & detection. One can have philosophical, logical and conceptual knowledge. For example I can know logically & conceptionally the final end of the human intellect is “to know” & I can’t know that by merely studying brain structures & neuro processes.

You sir are a walking talking category mistake.

>Its all up for grabs. Lunch may eat you, Ben, WATCH OUT!

I reply: To bad you are out to lunch.

>Yes, everything must be written again from scratch. There’s no point in using a concise summary or primary material, that would be too, erm, usefu

I reply: Accept you have made no summary or primary arguments so far all you did is make me guess. That I clearly guessed correctly must really intimidate you.

>Methodological naturalism has utility. Mystic woo woo has yet to rock my world.

I reply: I never invoked mysticism or methodological naturalism. I brought up metaphysical naturalism. You can’t even read plain English.

>You’ve abdicated your epistemological responsibility. You may leave the table with no pudding, as you simply can’t assess if your being fed good or bad things.

I reply: Whatever. We are done.

“Ah yet another article I have to plow threw because you can’t articulate your own views” -Yes, everything must be written again from scratch. There’s no point in using a concise summary or primary material, that would be too, erm, useful.

Now I get to tick my “brute fact” crazyman bingo card and watch you whine again. One more time, from above:

Ben, Genesis is an account of creation, that is wrong, in both scale and order.

“Also the implicit Fundamentalist New Atheist claim that “empirical natural knowledge is the only valid knowledge” is self-referential because it can’t be proven empirically without begging the question, thus the whole concept is false by it’s own standards”

- well if there is this unknowable knowledge that exists without detection, your wasting both our times. Its all up for grabs. Lunch may eat you, Ben, WATCH OUT!

Methodological naturalism has utility. Mystic woo woo has yet to rock my world.

“I absolutely know…”, really? Is that good philosophy?

“Yes, those who are wiser & more learned than I, by definition, are more trustworthy to interpret things then I am all by myself.” – You’ve abdicated your epistemological responsibility. You may leave the table with no pudding, as you simply can’t assess if your being fed good or bad things.

BenYachov:
Implicit in your question, if I may venture a guess, is the unstated question “Doesn’t 1 Timothy 2:4 imply universalism & how can that be true in light of the other verses that speak of Hell”.

Well, I did say a line of questioning, after all.

Specifically what I mean is that this is explicitly mentioned as a desire of God’s. To be fair, such a verse in the context of a merciful, loving God is pretty redundant. It would be like a caring father stating “I desire for none of my children to go to prison.” It’s a fairly obvious statement.

However, I’m not making the claim that everyone is saved, as there is stark evidence to the contrary throughout the Bible. This poses a serious problem. Are we to assume that the most powerful being with unlimited ability and foreknowledge can’t put together a plan by which all of his and man’s desires are met?

From the engineering perspective, perfection is a 1:0 gain to loss ratio. While impossible for man, we’re talking about a construct for which perfection is par for the course. That said, according to whichever standards for salvation you want, the vast majority of humans who have ever lived do not meet them. Statistically speaking, this is an abject failure on God’s part to get something that He explicitly stated He wants. What makes this especially problematic is that it’s something He can never have.

There’s an additional problem to this. You have said that, by the grace of God, you are a Catholic. The Bible validates this idea that it is God who chooses His own. From the standpoint of an omnipotent, omniscient God, this makes sense. He knew exactly what situation to place you in for you to believe in Him and choose Him and He had the capability of executing it and, voilà, here you are today. To be omniscient and omnipotent is to be aware of everything that results from your actions and every alternative action you could have taken, after all. An all-knowing being that created the universe, therefore, would know exactly what happens to who and what could have been done differently to change that.

The logical progression, which I’m sure you’ve followed, is that God desires all men to be saved and, in fact, is the one who engineers the situations by which those who are saved know God. Therefore, why has this not happened? Certainly it’s within God’s power and is a demonstrable method through which He operates. In fact, the miraculous works of Jesus were performed so that people might believe that He was the Son of God.

God, being omniscient, must know that I would believe if I were to witness such impossibly grand events for myself. He must also know that simply reading disjointed accounts of a person performing them 2000 years ago is not sufficient for me to believe. Surely, He knows what it would take for everyone who has ever, currently, or will ever live to believe.

Any being that willfully allows so many people to suffer in the worst agony imaginable for all eternity is either evil on a level that exceeds any human to date or is incapable.

Janus Grayden: Ben, I have a line of questioning if you’re interested in pursuing it.What truth can you assume is contained in 1 Timothy 2:4.From my perspective, it says that God wants all men saved.What is your take, as an inerrantist, on this verse?  

That is a simple but not simplistic, elegant, intelligent specific question that is likely to be hard to answer. I LOVE IT!!!:-)

I’m going to give it a mull for the rest of the day & get back to you. Implicit in your question, if I may venture a guess, is the unstated question “Doesn’t 1 Timothy 2:4 imply universalism & how can that be true in light of the other verses that speak of Hell”.

At least that is how I am going to treat it unless you would like to jump in & clarify if that is what you really mean.

Cheers.

I reply: Ah yet another article I have to plow threw because you can’t articulate your own views, make specific charges against my beliefs, ask concise questions or think for yourself(this everything Dawkins, Myers & their lowbrow fanboyz say is the truth and that good enough for me meme is getting old). Seriously, it’s as bad as listening to Ray Comfort wax eloquent on evolution only about half as smart.

>Self-referential clap-trap that never anchors to anything real.

I reply: That pretty much describes your sad attempts at polemics thus far…..yes & your clear frustration with the brute fact that I AM NOT A PROTESTANT FUNDAMENTALIST YOUNG EARTH CREATIONIST & your failure to accept that brute fact is clearly dogging you.

>You have a book.
It makes testable truth claims.
But you wont test them.

I reply: The burden of proof is still on you to show Genesis is a scientific text teaching science. It is clear you don’t possess even the most rudimentary historical, theological or philosophical knowledge to even begin making a case & like most fundie New Atheist types you are too proud to admit your own limitations.

Your unstated argument here is “Genesis can only legitimately be understood as a text book of modern empirical scientific claims & since it seems to contradict modern empirical scientific claims it must be false”. But I DON’T believe Genesis is to be understood as a text book of modern empirical scientific claims in the first place. I don’t believe it today & I doubt I’ll believe it tomorrow no matter how much you seem to wish otherwise. There is no logical, scientific, philosophical or historically definitive reason for me to believe Genesis MUST be understood as a modern empirical scientific text. You refuse to make that argument for it. You simply state by fiat & so we are at an impasse.

>” scientific hypotheses are per se outside the field of Revelation ” – But truth claims about origins are within teh realm of science.

I reply: Empirical Science can tell us about empirical natural knowledge in regards to the natural facts in relation to the origins of the universe but it can’t prove or disprove metaphysics. Also the implicit Fundamentalist New Atheist claim that “empirical natural knowledge is the only valid knowledge” is self-referential because it can’t be proven empirically without begging the question, thus the whole concept is false by it’s own standards. This warmed over neo-logical positivism was abandoned by AJ Flew at the height of his Atheism decades ago & no serious Metaphysical Naturalist philosopher believes it (i.e. Nagel, Rosenberg or Smithetc). It’s just low bow New Atheists(Dawkins, Myers etc) who are basically incompetent in these areas like the Proverbial Ray Comfort is in regards to Science & Evolution. I’m not impressed.

>Shameful response to a very simple question.

I reply: Rather it was a straight forward response to a purely simplistic question.

>Do you even know what you believe and your book says.

I reply: I absolutely know what I believe & have said so. If you don’t understand what I have said at least have the common sense to ASK A QUESTION instead of pretending you know it all. Whatever boilerplate polemics you have learned against young earth creationism MEAN NOTHING TO ME. I’m not a YEC. How is that not clear to you? At best I think it is extremely very very very remotely possible God MIGHT have made a world that looked old but was in fact young but I would take that idea about as seriously as I would the idea I am a brain in a Jar being deceived by an Evil Mad Scientist. That is I don’t take it seriously.

>Do you always have other people interpret things for you?

I reply: Yes, those who are wiser & more learned than I, by definition, are more trustworthy to interpret things then I am all by myself. I’m sure even Richard Dawkins doesn’t believe he can all by himself understand the mysteries of biology, evolution & the processes of natural science without consulting other scientists or deferring to them.

Clearly you think the Bible in general is supposed to be clear enough for the individual to know all truths & mysteries of life. The Church Fathers & historic Christianity in general balk at that such arrogant pretense. God didn’t give us a Bible Alone. He gave us a Bible, Tradition, reason & a church.

And hypothetically from my perspective if God really doesn’t exist it is STILL NOT CLEAR the Book of Genesis was meant to be used as a scientific text.

Live with it.

What truth can you assume is contained in 1 Timothy 2:4. From my perspective, it says that God wants all men saved. What is your take, as an inerrantist, on this verse?

>Dear Ben, I know all about manuscripts but the oldest and most reliable manuscripts use the word Isaiah.

I reply: I won’t dispute older(till someone finds an even older manuscript that says different) but how do we know it’s more “reliable”? What’s your objective criteria for this readability since we don’t have the autographs?

Further more it’s still irrelevant because the passage is STILL a combination of Malachi & Isaiah (& Exodus too) so Isaiah is in fact being cited. Plus there are the interpretive methods of Derash, Peshat,remez, sod, Midrash, & Gametra used by the in First century by Jews. It seems clear to me St. Mark is using a derash (comparative meaning, from Hebrew darash—”to inquire” or “to seek”) interpretation.

Your problem my friend is obvious & this is true regardless if God exists or not or the Bible is inerrant or not. Your a Twenty First Century man expecting a First Century document to follow modern conventions. Your like the fellow who reads an Old English text from the 17th century & says “Wow this fellow’s grammar is really bad!”. When in point of fact the fellow’s grammar might be impeccable as he follows the rules of grammar as used by 17th century people without fail.

Thus, do you really believe a First Century Jew learned in the Torah who heard John speak would pipe up & say “Hay wait a minute your misquoting scripture!”? No he would recognize John was using a Daresh of Malachi & Isaiah. Thus there is no error.

Sorry to harsh on you brother but Aquinas teaches me that reason comes before faith & your “example” of Biblical errancy here is not reasonable. That is a brute fact.

>Not anything else. Sorry Ben. But I am a believer in Christ like you but I am not an inerrantist

I reply: Well Protestant schemes of inerrancy often fail because Protestants hold to the Reformation novelty of the so called perspicuity of scripture. Catholics correctly recognize Scripture is inerrant just not perspicuous. We also believe in Tradition & the Authority of the Church. Thus variations in manuscripts, lack of the autographs, & interpretive obscurity don’t really mean anything to us. Thought they can cause poor Protestant sheleps like Bart what’s his face to lose their faith. Sad really.

Anyway Christ be with you my brother.

http://atheism.about.com/od/atheismatheiststheism/a/CourtiersReply.htm

Self-referential clap-trap that never anchors to anything real.

You have a book.
It makes testable truth claims.
But you wont test them.

” scientific hypotheses are per se outside the field of Revelation ” – But truth claims about origins are within teh realm of science.

Shameful response to a very simple question. Do you even know what you believe and your book says. Do you always have other people interpret things for you?

I reply: As a Catholic I reject private interpretation of Scripture(2 Peter 2:20) & since the Church has not ever given a definitive dogmatic infallible interpretation of Genesis I see no reason why I have too. My Church has no specific infallibly defined scheme in that regard other then the texts I quoted from Vatican One. I have my own opinions on the subject, which I am allowed to have, but I have no authority from God to bind others to believe them. I hold said opinions to be reasonable, fallible, & subject to change. I hold to the Augustinian principle that we must interpret Holy Scripture in light of natural science AND NOT make erroneous claims about the natural world based on a faulty interpretation of scripture.

To QUOTE HIM”Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he hold to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion. [1 Timothy 1.7]”
-Saint Augustine

>Was eve made from a rib, stuff like that.

I reply: Well I could believe Fr. Brian Harrison’s personal theory that God might have infused the fertilized ovum/male offspring of a pre-human female hominid with an immortal soul. Gave him eternal life & when he grew up put him to sleep & took a woman out of his body etc. Or I could take the rib story symbolically & believe God gave souls to two adult pre-human homonids etc..

or I could believe the theory mentioned Roberto Masi, from L’Osservatore Romano in 1969, who said QUOTE”according to the opinions of the above mentioned exegetes and theologians, it results that Revelation and Dogma say nothing directly concerning Monogenism or Polygenism, neither in favour nor against them. Besides, these scientific hypotheses are per se outside the field of Revelation. Within this context, different combinations of the scientific theory of evolution are therefore hypothetically possible or compatible with the doctrine of original sin. One can nevertheless consider biological monogenism together. Humanity has its origin in a single couple; this couple committed the sin against God and as a result of this all their children are born in original sin. This is the classical doctrine. Or it is possible to admit a biological polygenism and a theological monogenism. Evolution brought about not a single couple but many men, who constituted the primitive human population. One of these, who may be considered the leader, rebelled against God. This sin passed on to all men, his contemporaries, not by imitation, but by real propagation (Council of Trent Session V, DS. 1513), that is by a real solidarity already existing in this primordial human population. In them actual sinful humanity has its origin. It is also possible to combine biological and theological polygenism: all the primitive human population rebelled concordantly against God and from them are born the other sinful men. These hypotheses are only suppositions which many think are not contrary to Revelation and the bible. Even if we accept as valid the scientific theory of evolution and polygenism, it can still be in accordance with the dogma of original sin in the various manners indicated.”END QUOTE

or the Agnostic philosopher & mathmatician Bertrum Russel once quipped if we for the sake of argument both concede the existence of God & His classic attributes there is no reason why God could not have made the Universe 15 minutes ago. God created everything we know as it existed 15 minutes ago all at once. He created our minds with ready made memories of having lived prior to 15 minute ago & kept from our memories knowlege we didn’t exist prior to 15 minutes ago.

I always loved this thought experiment because if someone could come up with a plausible rational theocity as to why God might morally make a young universe that looked old I might re-consider Young Earth Creationism of course based on Augustine & Aquinas I would still need some science behind it. A Catholic is allowed by the Church to be a young Earth Creationist he just has no authority to insist the rest of his Catholic brethren must be YEC as well. But I won’t hold my breath waitng for such a theocity or the science. Plus I don’t need it God be Praised.

That’s my understanding. Very Catholic & orthodox & thank Jesus not at all Protestant.

Was eve made from a rib, stuff like that.

I reply: It’s the teaching of Tradition Rich. I’m Catholic so I reject Sola Scriptura(Scripture Alone) as a foolish Tradition of Men (made up by Luther & Co)that nullifies the Word of God & I believe in the Authority of Scripture(2 Tim 3:16), Apostolic Tradition(2 Thes 2:15) & the Church(1 Tim 3:15).

I’m not a Protestant Rich. I’m an orthodox believing Catholic Christian by the Grace of God. That’s important because well if I was an Atheist trying to convince a Baptist his beliefs are false I don’t think I’d waste my time trying to prove to him Muhammed wasn’t a Prophet since he already believes that.

Which is why I don’t understand why you think the views of Jehovah’s Witnesses are relavant here?

>The claim contradicts what Genesis says. Genesis does not say when the sun and moon became visible (which would not have been until after eyes were created in any event); it tells when they were created. Genesis also refers to fruiting plants, which came after the first sea and land animals.

I reply: Ah no that is not correct & I’m not defending concordism ot the JW’s BTW.

Genesis 1:14-19 says “And God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so. God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day”

It doesn’t say God “created” them on the fourth day. It does not use the word “bara” which is the strong word for “created”(i.e. as in create from nothing) used in Genesis 1:1 for the Heavens & the Earth.

It uses the phraise u-iosh or (‘asah) which can mean “to do”, “to work”,”to Labor” “to work about anything” “to prepare”etc

See Strong’s concordence
http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H6213&t=KJV

Thus the “become visible” interpretation is plausible IMHO.

That’s pretty bad. One has to be very low on the food chain to know less about the Bible then a bunch of JW’s.

Here we have yet another example of fundie skeptics who believe the Bible was written in English.

These talk origins people should just stick to defending Evolution from the perspective of science & leave the Hermunetics to people with an IQ above the #3.

Yikes again.

BenYachov: The Bible can’t teach error on any subject in which it is formally teaching. The question then becomes when is the sacred author formally teaching science, history, doctrine, morality etc?

Does it say that in the bible, some other religious text, or are you making it up?

The creation account in Genesis 1 lists ten major events in this order: (1) a beginning; (2) a primitive earth in darkness and enshrouded in heavy gases and water; (3) light; (4) an expanse or atmosphere; (5) large areas of dry land; (6) land plants; (7) sun, moon, and stars discernible in the expanse, and seasons beginning; (8) sea monsters and flying creatures; (9) wild and tame beasts and mammals; (10) man. The odds of getting that order correct by chance are one in 3,628,800.
Source:
Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1985. Life–How Did It Get Here? Brooklyn, NY, p. 37.
Response:
The real order is: (1) a beginning; (2) light; (3) sun and stars; (4) primitive earth, moon, and atmosphere; (5) dry land; (6) sea creatures; (7) some land plants; (8) land creatures and more plants and sea creatures; (9) flying creatures (insects) and more plants and land and sea creatures; (10) mammals, and more land and sea animals, insects, and plants; (11) the first birds, (12) fruiting plants (which is what Genesis talks about) and more land, sea, and flying creatures; (13) man and more of the various animals and plants. That is nothing like the order endorsed by Jehova’s Witnesses.

The odds of choosing that particular order are not one in 3,628,800. Much of the order is constrained. For example, the beginning must have been first, and land had to exist before land animals and plants. When these are taken into account, the chance of getting that order are one in 5,760 at worst.

The claim contradicts what Genesis says. Genesis does not say when the sun and moon became visible (which would not have been until after eyes were created in any event); it tells when they were created. Genesis also refers to fruiting plants, which came after the first sea and land animals.

The Bible can’t teach error on any subject in which it is formally teaching. The question then becomes when is the sacred author formally teaching science, history, doctrine, morality etc?

The Bible can & does use different literary gentres. The Gospel of John for example employs a know biographical gentre where the author places the most important events of the subject’s life up front & not in chronological order.

As for Luke I see no evidence he was writing non-chronologically & I have yet to see a real silver bullet “contradiction”.

SteveK:
God didn’t put pen to parchment and write it so your statement is not simplistic, it’s inaccurate. And it’s more analogous to a library of books.
If inerrant means no errors of any kind whatsoever, then the bible is obviously not inerrant – but that is trivial. If innerant means not in error with regard to the original message those library of books intended to convey, then I think the bible we have today is inerrant.  

Right, well like I said, I wasn’t speaking for myself, I was saying what I think the author of the videos would be likely to say. For justification of that, you can take a look at this video, where he talks about the “word of God” and such:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Blytz7l1dRs

Note that I agree with you – I don’t share his view of the Bible. That’s the view I grew up with, but I am more sympathetic toward moderate/liberal Christians who seem to take textual criticism honestly and seriously. However, regardless of what you or I think, the author is espousing a viewpoint which many Christians would, in fact, agree with (that the Bible must be completely error-free to be the “word of God”). This literalist viewpoint is, like I said, simplistic, and I don’t like that many atheists seem to give so much credence to the view and disregard any honest attempt to establish historical context of the Bible.

With that said, if Luke was intending to write an “orderly account” of the goings-on of Jesus’ life, and if he is wrong about something, then perhaps that at least casts some doubt on the credibility of Luke. I don’t think that means we can automatically throw out the whole Bible, but it means that literalists may need to adjust their viewpoint.

Geneisis: WRONG. very, very wrong.

It would help if you would make a specific point & or a specific argument because I refuse to play a game of guess what the erneist Atheist is upset about. The article you have linked too criticizes “concordism”. It doesn’t tell me anything new since I have read similar criticisms of concordism in the writings of Catholic Physicist Fr. Stanley Jaki & Catholic Physicist Stephen M. Barr. The problem with interpreting Genesis in light of current science is when scientific understanding changes then your interpretation of Genesis must change. Through out history this has been done as documented by Fr. Jaki in his book “Genesis 1: A Cosmogenesis?”. Both Progressive Creationists and Theistic Evolutionist have employed concordism. OTOH both Progressive Creationists and Theistic Evolutionist have used the framework interpretation as well. The framework view rejects the idea the days of creation are meant to be understood sequentially. This is in harmony with the plain meaning of the text since the Hebrew doesn’t literally say “First Day” “Second Day”….etc.. but more like “a One Day” “ a Two Day”etc. It’s also not a novelty made up after the 19th century to deal with Darwin or the findings of modern geology. Philo of Alexandra used a framework interpretation and so did St. Augustine. In his mature thought Augustine moved from an allegorical interpretation of Genesis to the “Literal” but his understanding of literal bears little resemblance to how we understand that today.

See here:
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1988/PSCF3-88Young.html

So your beef is Genesis doesn’t seem all that useful as a science text and therefore it is untrue? Ok but then the burden of proof is on you to show the Book of Genesis was supposed to be understood as a science text teaching scientific truth.

Yeah, good luck with that.

As a Catholic Christian I know the Book of Genesis teaches the following theological truths.
1. On God the creator of all things
1. If anyone denies the one true God, creator and lord of things visible and invisible: let him be excommunicated.
2. If anyone is so bold as to assert that there exists nothing besides matter: let him be excommunicated.
3. If anyone says that the substance or essence of God and that of all things are one and the same: let him be excommunicated.
4. If anyone says that finite things, both corporal and spiritual, or at any rate, spiritual, emanated from the divine substance; or that the divine essence, by the manifestation and evolution of itself becomes all things or, finally, that God is a universal or indefinite being which by self determination establishes the totality of things distinct in genera, species and individuals: let him be excommunicated.
5. If anyone does not confess that the world and all things which are contained in it, both spiritual and material, were produced, according to their whole substance, out of nothing by God; or holds that God did not create by his will free from all necessity, but as necessarily as he necessarily loves himself; or denies that the world was created for the glory of God: let him be excommunicated.