If Orthodox Catholics believe that Adam and Eve had two sons, Cane and Abel,....

[Vagabond]

And they believe in Creation, how do they explain the human race?

I've always been too embarrassed to ask anyone else.

Mumsnetters..... please explain.

Adam's rib......? Seems a poor excuse, frankly.

hackmum Fri 25-May-12 09:18:21
"I always chuckle when people say the Bible is full of metaphors not to be taken literally. Of course people did believe this stuff to be literally true until Darwin and Wallace came along and proved that it couldn't be. Then people adapted and decided it was "metaphorical"."

Metaphorical/allegorical interpretations of various parts of the Bible have always been around; plenty of work on different interpretations of Bible texts in the Middle Ages. The Song of Songs is a typical example: I'd say it's only in recent times that this has acquired a non-allegorical interpretation.

And ime even strictly creationist Evangelicals who would be horrified to apply an allegorical interpretation to the first books of Genesis are quite happy to do so to the Psalms of David.

Thanks, MissLinnet.

Metabilis3: "some people believe all sorts of stuff to be literally true."

Can't argue with that.

"The OT hasn't been officially regarded as 'literally true' for hundreds of years. By Catholics."

When did Catholics stop believing in the literal truth of the Genesis story? Was it before Darwin published Origin of Species?

Though of course when it comes to the NT, it's the other way around - when Jesus says of the communion bread "This is my body", Protestants believe he was speaking metaphorically, whereas Catholics believe he was speaking literally.

I've heard of Catholic Christians, of Orthodox Christians, I've never heard of an Orthodox Catholic What is an unorthodox catholic then? I don't know much about chistianism of any form, but I do strongly believe that if one is going to criticise anything they should first have better knowledge on the subject.

I don't know why you are aiming it at Catholics very few catholics see the bible as a literal truth.

@hackmum When do you think Catholics stopped following the dietary laws in Leviticus? Well before Darwin. Catholicism is not like Protestantism in that it has never been a bible-based faith. Widespread Bible Study (as a normal thing for people who go to church every week to do) isn't a catholic concept. I don't think we ever, as a group, got over the 'it's all in Latin' thing , even though our translations were done not much after the king James version. Lots of Catholics never read the OT - it's just not really a thing for us apart from the first reading at church every Sunday and I suppose the psalm.As our priests are so fond of telling us - we are a New Testament people.

I've never heard of an Orthodox Catholic

Reminds me of the Woody Allen gag about his first wife being an unorthodox Jew...a VERY unorthodox Jew, she was a Nazi.

I was told (in my ante-natal classes) hat childbirth is painful because of Eve.

And this from a Health care/midwife.

Why always attacks on the Catholics ? You do understand that Old Testament forms the basis of all mono-theastic religions and, in fact, has far greater emphasis in Judaism?

at ComposHat

When did Catholics stop believing in the literal truth of the Genesis story? Was it before Darwin published Origin of Species?

It began in the seventeenth century with the publication of Histoire critique du Vieux Testament's in 1678 and became mainstream in the 1700s.

The Orthodox/Unorthodox thing reminds me of a friend of mine who thought that Christianity was a branch of Catholicism. Not sure where he was going with that, whether he thought there were also Jewish Catholics, Buddhist Catholics etc...

Metabilis3: "When do you think Catholics stopped following the dietary laws in Leviticus?"

I don't know - that's why I asked the question. But surely Protestants also stopped following the dietary laws a long time ago? And yet Catholics continued the tradition of eating fish on Fridays long after Protestants had stopped it.

I'm also aware that Catholics tend to be much keener on the NT than the OT. I did wonder why the OP mentioned Catholics rather than Protestants, as there is clearly a fundamentalist wing of Protestantism (esp in the US) that believes in the literal truth of the Genesis story, whereas I'm not sure that there is a Catholic equivalent.

@pandawatch Of course there are Jewish Catholics, since Jews are an racial group as well as a religious one. And of course, the very first Pope was Jewish.

@hackmum actually we didn't carry on with the fish on friday thing longer than protestants. We officially dumped it decades ago (although it's back now, officially, but it's irrelevant to me since I'm a vegan). I know CofE types who have never dropped it.

It's also irrelevant to this thread whether or not protestants believe in the literal truth of the OT (I doubt most of them do, I certainly don't know any creationists) since this thread was designed to bash Catholics. :(

yes but only the orthodox ones Metabilis

Hi :)
Maiden post coming up (immediately showing staggering lack of judgement in choosing this particular subject in which to make my first appearance.)

TheUnmember commented yesterday that the gospels were written by contemporaries of Jesus, but this is not the case. It is generally accepted that Mark wrote the earliest gospel (60 years after Jesus' death at the earliest) and, given life expectancy of the period, was therefore unlikely to be a contemporary, let alone a witness, to any of the events. Mark's gospel was originally written in Aramaic and later translated to Greek.
(I only know this because it came up on another forum)
Well, it was nice knowing you (gulp)

@wot As far as I was taught at school - I haven't been remotely interested in keeping up with scripture studies since, even though I go to mass every week - Matthew and John were both disciples, and Mark was one of the camp follower types, more specifically someone who then was part of Peter's 'followers' during the period described in Acts. Therefore Matthew and John would have been witnesses, Mark might have been a witness but if not, was closely associate with someone who was. Luke was a follower/associate of St Paul (before he was a saint obv ) so his gospel was definitely not a first hand account, but we were taught that all four gospels were Divine Revelation. So being present at all the events wasn't necessary anyway.

Agree with Metabilis that RCism 'has never been a bible-based faith' compared with Protestantism. Remember that RCs accord weight to Tradition as well as scripture.

And I think that eating fish on Fridays was/is a tradition rather than part of the Leviticus dietary laws?

TheUnmember commented yesterday that the gospels were written by contemporaries of Jesus, but this is not the case. It is generally accepted that Mark wrote the earliest gospel (60 years after Jesus' death at the earliest) and, given life expectancy of the period, was therefore unlikely to be a contemporary, let alone a witness, to any of the events. Mark's gospel was originally written in Aramaic and later translated to Greek.

Whoever told you this was mistaken. Mark's gospel is widely accepted to have been written around 65 AD just 30 years after the events (see Harris Understanding the Bible. Palo Alto: Mayfield. 1985)

Oops, far too slow there. Wot, I think you are right but I suspect this may be controversial. Like Metabilis, I was taught at school (both non-RC junior school and convent senior school) that Matthew and John at least were disciples, but I think biblical scholarship now suggests otherwise re: the dating.

Conservative scholars say Mark was written around 50 AD. That's the controversy. Was it 50 AD or was it 65 AD? I was being gracious and going with the one closest to what whatgoesaround said.

UnMember, that's interesting.

@Princess It wouldn't surprise me, on the basis that if you think about Acts, they were all a bit busy beetling around and being persecuted to be writing gospels too.........

"And I think that eating fish on Fridays was/is a tradition rather than part of the Leviticus dietary laws?"

Yes, that's true.

"Widely accepted".

I think this a new use of the term "widely accepted", which actually means "not very widely accepted".