By Genesis, I mean very specifically Genesis 1 - 11.
I avoid "history" and prefer "historical fact" because Moses may have done "research" (historia in Greek), but he received most as given tradition, not by research. Historical fact is enough.
By Roman Catholic, I mean over the centuries.
And by Two Witnesses, I invoke these two: Thomas M. - an Evangelical quetioner - and the answer by CMI’s Shaun Doyle.
- Thomas M.
- Defending an old Roman Catholic interpretation of Genesis 1–11 is NOT defending the Bible—it is defending an interpretation of the Bible that even the Roman Catholic Church abandoned over a century ago as academically indefensible! As the pastor of a theologically conservative evangelical church, ...
- Shaun Doyle
- One, that the Roman Catholic church interpreted Genesis 1–11 the way we do is no argument against our interpretation. ...
So, Thomas M. (1) and Shaun Doyle (2) agree Roman Catholics embraced Genesis 1 to 11 as history up to a century ago. In two or three witnesses ... btw, I disagree on the idea (taken for granted, perhaps by both, perhaps by only Thomas M., but from sloppiness, not knowledge) that Roman Catholic Church as a whole ditched it as "academically undefensible".
Fr. Fulcran Vigoroux was one century ago, he did not get assent from all of the Church, his compromises were limited to non-world wide Flood and Day-Age and he either did not know of the bones of contention (Cro-Maagnon or Neanderthals) or he considered them as Adamites, within at least LXX timeline.
Comprehension of Mark 10:6 and of Carbon dates makes his compromise by now obsolete, necessitating a forwards to less Biblical or back to more strictly Biblical. And this latter stance is not actually condemned. It is often treated as if, or the issue is even avoided by pretending YECs are sick people, whose stance and arguments need no adressing, that even by "Pope Francis", but it is not as such condemned./HGL