Interesting thread. . . but reads increasingly more like Fundamentalists vs Modern Biblical Theory to me.
Actually, what several years of Theology in a Catholic University has taught me is to put the Bible and everything on it within historical context, but still keeping in mind that Scriptures were written by men through divine inspiration. One should not read the Bible without considering the centuries of biblical scholarship that comes with it. In fact, if you read the footnotes in the Bible, they're actually very helpful in understanding the context of the Scriptures.
The Catholic Church has come a long way from the time of Galileo, where the Catholic Church held sway over both the flock's faith and secular education. That's why Galileo was threatened with excommunication if he did not renounce his radical theory that the Sun, not the Earth was the center of the solar system. Now, we find scientist priests who find no problem in mixing their faith in a creator and the complexities of the natural sciences.
You also have to consider the Bible as a document to propagate the faith, and not as a historical document. Theology also gathers from the insights of the numerous scholars who have perused the Bible in the past, and not dwell on the literal interpretations of the text.
Of course, we all have our theories about the true story of creation. There is no concrete scientific proof that everything was created in 6 days, but neither have scientists come up with repeatable results in controlled experiments that certain portions of minerals and conditions can result in a spontaneous life form being created. The answer I believe lies somewhere in between - my take: Somebody started and designed it all, but from then on, it followed a very specific path that can be observed and explained.
However, given the scientific advancements in the last several hundred years or so, it is very encouraging that the Church and most of the faithful have been able to reconcile their faith with the natural sciences.
An interesting read is debate in Time magazine between an Atheist Scientist and one who believes in God.
http://richarddawkins.net/articles/4047-god-vs-science-a-debate-between-richard-dawkins-and-francis-collinsOh yes, and an old Church document on how to interpret the Bible, intro'd by no less than Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, aka Pope Benedict. . .
http://www.ewtn.com/library/curia/pbcinter.htmTo quote the conclusion:
"From what has been said in the course of this long account—admittedly far too brief on a number of points—the first conclusion that emerges is that biblical exegesis fulfills, in the church and in the world, an <indispensable task.> To attempt to bypass it when seeking to understand the Bible would be to create an illusion and display lack of respect for the inspired Scripture.
When fundamentalists relegate exegetes to the role of translators only (failing to grasp that translating the Bible is already a work of exegesis) and refuse to follow them further in their studies, these same fundamentalists do not realize that for all their very laudable concern for total fidelity to the word of God, they proceed in fact along ways which will lead them far away from the true meaning of the biblical texts, as well as from full acceptance of the consequences of the incarnation. The eternal Word became incarnate at a precise period of history, within a clearly defined cultural and social environment. Anyone who desires to understand the word of God should humbly seek it out there where it has made itself visible and accept to this end the necessary help of human knowledge. Addressing men and women, from the beginnings of the Old Testament onward, God made use of all the possibilities of human language, while at the same time accepting that his word be subject to the constraints caused by the limitations of this language. Proper respect for inspired Scripture requires undertaking all the labors necessary to gain a thorough grasp of its meaning. Certainly, it is not possible that each Christian personally pursue all the kinds of research which make for a better understanding of the biblical text. This task is entrusted to exegetes, who have the responsibility in this matter to see that all profit from their labor.
A second conclusion is that the very nature of biblical texts means that interpreting them will require continued use of the <historical-critical method,> at least in its principal procedures. The Bible, in effect, does not present itself as a direct revelation of timeless truths but as the written testimony to a series of interventions in which God reveals himself in human history. In a way that differs from tenets of other religions, the message of the Bible is solidly grounded in history. It follows that the biblical writings cannot be correctly understood without an examination of the historical circumstances that shaped them. "Diachronic" research will always be indispensable for exegesis. Whatever be their own interest and value, "synchronic" approaches cannot replace it. To function in a way that will be fruitful, synchronic approaches should accept the conclusions of the diachronic, at least according to their main lines."
