a hard question

  • Thread starter Thread starter SimonArizona
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Well the thing is that I am not ignoring the evidence. You see here in Rome there is a little place called the Gregorian. Now in the Gregorian there are some people that either for fools or obedience are studing a thing called Philosophy. Now in Philosophy, Evolution is a hot topic.

And you have loads of arguements for both sides.

One of the I loved a lot, and I shall tell you tommorow.
 
According to the fall of man, man sinned and therefore was condemned to die.

Yet was man not dieing during his evolutionary process long before Adam and Eve sinned?

Who can answer?
The beings during the evolutionary process were not fully man; I believe it wasn’t until God spoke a soul into the first person that we were truly “man” So yes the beings at the time were dying, but they were not man/human beings in the full sense of the word.
Furthermore The scripture may mean death of the soul, not the body. In that case, my explanation still holds up, because man did not recieve a soul until a certian point in time when God gave us one. With giving us a soul, he allowed us to know the difference between right and wrong, and allowed us to choose one or the other. So one might argue that death of the soul came when that first “man” chose evil-i.e. the fall of man.
 
According to the fall of man, man sinned and therefore was condemned to die.

Yet was man not dieing during his evolutionary process long before Adam and Eve sinned?

Who can answer?
Man was not Man in the biblical sense until God endowed him with a soul. How and when that happened in the evolutionary process is for someone way smarter than me to answer.
 
Gravity is “just a theory” too. Do you believe in it less because it is “just a theory”? How about the germ theory of disease? It’s “just a theory” too. Name something in science that is more than a theory.
No, I wouldn’t say I believe less in gravity because there is merely a theory to explain it… You obviously misread my question - I did not indicate what my beliefs are but asked that question simply in acknowledgement of the fact that there are many people - even on this forum - who believe that there are flaws in the theory of evolution. Certainly, in relation to my faith, I do not lose any sleep over the question of evolution - if it did not happen as scientists propose, it does not particularly matter because either way I believe God is ultimately behind man’s development. There are certainly many things in science which are much more than just a theory - the germ theory itself is certainly regarded as more than a theory, and biology is one area of science where processes can be actively observed in the advancement of particular theories. The theory of evolution, on the other hand, does not seem to be convincing the average American or Briton with surveys showing that less than half accepting the idea of evolution - indeed, fewer people give credence to the theory today than did in the 1980’s. Again, I’m not giving this fact sneeringly, but it is amazing, with all the recent advances in science, that a theory such as evolution which is well over a century and a half old and has been given so much attention by scientists has failed to convince a very significant portion of humanity of its ultimate origins.
 
Science is also a bunch of hogwash.
From CCC:
159 Faith and science: “Though faith is above reason, there can never be any real discrepancy between faith and reason. Since the same God who reveals mysteries and infuses faith has bestowed the light of reason on the human mind, God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever contradict truth.” “Consequently, methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things of faith derive from the same God. The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are.”

2293 Basic scientific research, as well as applied research, is a significant expression of man’s dominion over creation. Science and technology are precious resources when placed at the service of man and promote his integral development for the benefit of all. By themselves however they cannot disclose the meaning of existence and of human progress. Science and technology are ordered to man, from whom they take their origin and development; hence they find in the person and in his moral values both evidence of their purpose and awareness of their limits.

There is much more to evolution than just Darwin. Catholic scientists have studied evolution as well:
Ken MIiller on Human Evolution
 
According to the fall of man, man sinned and therefore was condemned to die.

Yet was man not dieing during his evolutionary process long before Adam and Eve sinned?

Who can answer?
IF (and that isn’t a concession) humanity resulted from evolution, then Adam and Eve’s ancestors were not human. Adam and Eve were the first human beings, regardless of how they came to exist. So no human being died before Adam and Eve fell from grace.
 
A day 1 24 hour period. What don’t people get one day is 24 hours just like it is today. How more clear can scripture be???
The problem is not with Scriptures lack of clarity, friend,it is with your presumption of the length of a day. Today we define a “day” as a 24 hour period of time because that is the amount of time that it takes the earth to complete one rotation in relation to the sun. Scripture is perfectly clear that the earth was not revolving around the sun on days 1, 2 and 3 because the sun, moon and stars were not yet created! We have no idea how long the “day” spoken of in those accounts was. You are simply imposing a definition into Scripture which did not exist at the time. Nowhere does Scripture ever say that the “day” in the creation accounts was a 24 hour period.
In short: the fact that the sun did not yet exist and despite this Moses uses the term “day” indicates that the “day” probably is meant in a figurative sense, and certainly not in the literal sense that we use it today. How much clearer can Scripture be?
 
According to the fall of man, man sinned and therefore was condemned to die.

Yet was man not dieing during his evolutionary process long before Adam and Eve sinned?

Who can answer?
It is only a difficult question if one assumes that the story of the couple in the garden is literalistic history.

When one looks at it for what it is one sees that it is a symbolic myth attempting to explain something beyond the author’s understanding. The author is exploring the question “Given the beliefs that God is all loving and all powerful, that God made humans human beings in God’s own image, and that we are very good, why do we suffer?”

The author who chose to explore this question does not have the option of giving a historical explanation. The author doesn’t know a historical explanation. The author makes it very evident that his genre is not historical by his obvious use of symbols.

When we understand the literary form of the story, questions that presume historicity become irrelevant.
 
It is only a difficult question if one assumes that the story of the couple in the garden is literalistic history.

When one looks at it for what it is one sees that it is a symbolic myth attempting to explain something beyond the author’s understanding. The author is exploring the question “Given the beliefs that God is all loving and all powerful, that God made humans human beings in God’s own image, and that we are very good, why do we suffer?”

The author who chose to explore this question does not have the option of giving a historical explanation. The author doesn’t know a historical explanation. The author makes it very evident that his genre is not historical by his obvious use of symbols.

When we understand the literary form of the story, questions that presume historicity become irrelevant.
This a very reasonable answer except that the Catholic Church mandates Catholics to believe in a literal Adam and Eve.

The author also makes it evident that his genre isn’t science by his obvious use of symbols.

The question as to a literal Genesis opening or not, can best be answered by coming to a knowledge of how the Jews understood these passages to mean. Did they take Genesis literally? Catholic theologian and author Frank Sheed says no.
 
This a very reasonable answer except that the Catholic Church mandates Catholics to believe in a literal Adam and Eve.
But that has nothing to do with the story of the couple in the garden, it is only related to the previous stories on creation.
 
It still gets to my point we can’t prove what happened in the sky at that point. The plagues and etc. were for a purpose: to recognize God and for that we can’t take anything for granted.
True, but I think the 10 plagues of Egypt were sent forth by God to belittle the Egyptian’s gods, therefore proving that the God of the Israelites was the true God of gods and Lord of Lords and King of kings.

All of the plagues seem to be directly influencing some particular area or element that some of the Egyptian’s main gods were supposed to have control over.

When confronted with the fact that his gods were powerless to stop this strange I AM “dessert god” that Moses worshipped, it totally humiliated Pharaoh and proved who the True God was after all.
We must ask forgiveness of sins.
Yes, this is true.
I do believe there were 24 hour time periods rather than millennium as one day.
I do not think this is the case. And I don’t see how this directly relates to the forgiveness of sins either. But you are free to believe this 24 hour period if you choose.
 
Fine, Don’t believe in God’s word. I do and I believe evolution and science are man made and they don’t take presidence over God.
 
Has anyone seen this article: The Hebrew Word “Yom” Used with a Number in Genesis 1?

I don’t know Hebrew, but there is the suggestion by this gentleman and another biblical scholar that we have the issue of a poor translation in regard to the word “day.”
Gleason L. Archer, Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, pages 60-61, Baker 1982:
“ There were six major stages in this work of formation, and these stages are represented by successive days
of a week. In this connection it is important to observe that none of the six creative days bears a definite article in the Hebrew text; the translations “the first day,” “ the second day,” etc., are in error. The Hebrew says, “And the evening took place, and the morning took place, day one” (1:5). Hebrew expresses “the first
day” by hayyom harison, but this text says simply yom ehad (day one). Again, in v.8 we read not hayyom hasseni (“the second day”) but yom seni (“a second day”). In Hebrew prose of this genre, the definite article was generally used where the noun was intended to be definite; only in poetic style could it be omitted. The same is true with the rest of the six days; they all lack the definite article. Thus they are well adapted to a sequential pattern, rather than to strictly delimited units of time.”
Gleason Archer was Associate Editor of the Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament. In the quote above, the first two italicized letters ha of words like harison indicate the Hebrew prefix “heh” meaning “the.”
Can anyone comment on the validity of this?
 
Fine, Don’t believe in God’s word. I do and I believe evolution and science are man made and they don’t take presidence over God.
No just don’t believe in a literal 6 days as it is poetry. God’s Word is fine.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top