Francis

I've just read this. Okay That's a Masonic term, actually - many of whom are also Protestants.

Because it may not be literal. The snake is Satan and he "spoke" to Eve, thus influencing her actions, but it may not have been with a literal voice and there may not have been a literal snake. Demons don't to be seen and heard in a physical sense, in order to make their presence known or felt. When people become demonicially possessed, no one can hear or see the demon, except perhaps the victim, who intensely experiences its presence.

So Christ died out of love for a building? "Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her "(Ephesian 5:25).

The NT wasn't officially compiled until about 300 years after Christ. The Church, on the other hand, came into existence 50 days after Christ. The early Christians only had access to the OT (if they were lucky) and the gospel and the teachings of the Church (as formalised by the apostles) were made known by word of mouth. But I'm not going to get all that here. Suffice to say that I was once a Protestant - been there, done that.

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:- 337 God himself created the visible world in all its richness, diversity and order. 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.204 On the subject of creation, the sacred text teaches the truths revealed by God for our salvation,205 permitting us to "recognize the inner nature, the value and the ordering of the whole of creation to the praise of God."

I don't believe you. The Catholic Church is, in effect, the word of God. It exists before the NT did. The Church probably doesn't have a definite interpretation of the talking snake, because whether it's interpreted literally or not, I guess it doesn't matter. As for the "six days", the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) states they are "figurative" (if memory serves). I can provide the exact wording, but it might some time.

As far as the Church's mission is concerned, such things are irrelevant. Catholics can believe the moon is made of cheese and the earth is flat, if they want to.

My criterion is the Church. It decides how Scripture is interpreted, not me.

I will rephrase my comment: Catholics are obliged to believe that the universe had a beginning.

No The Church's role is not to be a judge of science.

Brilliant idea! When an "accepted" science theory is replaced by a better one, then what? The Church will have to say, "Yeah, well, er ... about that ... we got that wrong ... but this new theory is a beauty!" Thankfully, the Church is not that stupid.

The author of Genesis (and countless readers after him) may well have believed that the "six days" of creation were literal, but science has confirmed that the "six days" in Genesis 1 are in fact, symbolic - just as the talking snake and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil are probably symbolic. Science has confirmed also that the verse that got Galileo into trouble was symbolic. I believe the Genesis accounts of creation are a mixture of literal and symbolic - just as the book of Revelation is (which is the account of a vision).

Are you familiar with the concept of figurative/symbolic language? How do you know that the author was not describing a vision? And you're cherry-picking - do you really think a talking snake and a tree of the knowledge of good and evil were literal too? Have a gander at the last book of the New Testament - Revelation - and try and tell me that the author was being completely literal! Glad to see that you sincerely support freedom of speech

No it doesn't. They would all have understood a day as a length of time. It's not as if days varied in duration from day to day. They would also have understood that without the sun, there would be no days at all - yet the author says the sun wasn't created until Day 4. They would also have understood light as the sun, yet the author says light was created on Day 1 - three days before the sun was created. They would also have understood that snakes don't talk and that knowledge of good and evil doesn't grow on trees. In chapter 2 of Genesis there is a second creation account, which takes place in a "day" (not six days) - do you suppose the author might have noticed that the two accounts were different? Do you think they might be different because they are not literal? Do you think they might have understood the concept of symbolic language? Furthermore, the authors of Genesis didn't have to understand what they were writing down (and probably didn't), as they were supernaturally inspired to write whatever God wanted them to write.

The author of Genesis says the sun was created on the fourth day. This suggests he wasn't offering a literal description of creation. A tree of knowledge of good and bad, a talking snake, God resting on the seventh day, light being created before the sun ... do these oddities suggest a literal description? I don't think so.