Adam and the animals?

[twinc]

Were there Dinosaurs and Primates in the line up waiting to be named[Gen.2:19-20] - this is not as frivolous as it may seem - twinc

 

[GEddie]

Were there Dinosaurs and Primates in the line up waiting to be named[Gen.2:19-20] - this is not as frivolous as it may seem - twinc

Well there certainly were primates, since we have them today (baboons, monkeys, etc) and since we ourselves are, bodily, primates.

Dinosaurs, well, science says they never coexisted with human life. Since we otherwise trust science for truth and knowledge, in the absence of any new evidence I’d say no, there were none anymore for Adam to see.

ICXC NIKA.

 

[twinc]

Well there certainly were primates, since we have them today (baboons, monkeys, etc) and since we ourselves are, bodily, primates.

Dinosaurs, well, science says they never coexisted with human life. Since we otherwise trust science for truth and knowledge, in the absence of any new evidence I’d say no, there were none anymore for Adam to see.

ICXC NIKA.

thank you young Eddie - many have not answered,so guess why ? - shall we just wait a little while longer and see how this develops - meanwhile guess who named the Dinosaurs - twinc

 

[Mintaka]

If Eden existed in some kind of time bubble (thus allowing the Fall to affect all Creation throughout history), Adam might easily have named the dinosaurs.

As with the strange fascination of the disciples with John’s longevity, “What is it to thee? Follow thou Me.”

People get so worried about little details. Dinosaurs are not the point of the story.

(This is not to say that it’s not fun to speculate on these points; it is. As Sir Thomas Browne said, “What song the Sirens sang, or what name Achilles assumed when he hid himself among women, though puzzling questions, are not beyond conjecture.”

But people get so insistent that they know one way or another, when really, they can’t. Then they miss the point by getting too involved in such absolute adamant declarations about irrelevant extra-story stuff.)

Also, if someone is about to declare that the devil named the dinosaurs, do us a favor and don’t. Seriously. Satan may be the “lord of this world” in some senses, but all creatures belong to God by right of creation, and none belong to Satan. To contend otherwise is to espouse Gnosticism.

 

[choy]

obviously the bible didn’t bother into going to the entire list

the point here is showing man’s dominion over God’s creation. the bible isn’t meant to be a list of all the animals on the earth

 

[twinc]

It seems reasonable to accept that Adam [as man]named animals, since man[as man] has named animals ever since - so did Adam name Dinosaurs and Primates but not necessarily as such.The question revolves around whether they came before or after or at the same time as clearly stated by the Bible - twinc

 

[PeterK]

twinc,
The Catholic Church does not insist that the faithful* literally *believe that Adam named any animals. I am very comfortable with viewing this particular detail of the creation narrative as allegorical or symbolic but not literal truth. Every detail of the creation narrative is not to be understood as literal factual historical truth. Some pretty unreasonable ideas start to form.
For example, did Adam also name all the microscopic animals that he could not see? All the bottom dwelling fish? All kinds of crazy explanations will result in an attempt to prove the biblical narrative is not wrong or false. And to be sure it’s not wrong or false - but maybe some are reading it the wrong way.

just thoughts - no harm done.

Peter K

 

[twinc]

Peter K - The Church requires that the literal or obvious sense always be accepted unless reason or necessity dictate otherwise.There is no mention of fish animals or microscopic animals.The task may not have been as impossible as it may seem for there were then only a few kinds of animals from which the many others have sprung - twinc

 

[COPLAND_3]

I believe that in the Creation accounts we have those days being time intervals of some kind, but not necessarily 24 hours intervals, it could very well have been intervals of very long periods of time. I imagine the pre-historic days happened before Adam and Eve, probably sometime between “day 1” and “day 6”.

 

[twinc]

Is 6days too much or too little,so how about 6seconds,minutes.hours,weeks,months,years
or hundreds,thousands,millions and billions of years.How does this sound 6seconds shall thou labour and rest on the 7th second and keep it holy and go to Sunday mass every seven seconds or shall we try one of the other suggested options with evening and morning was the first second and the second second or shall we try one of the other options.So how long would a day be in the thousand or millions of years or the 30days of the non stop rain of the Flood - some Flood that some even say was only local and not global - so it really maskes more sense just to take God’s word - twinc

 

[twinc]

thank you young Eddie - many have not answered,so guess why ? - shall we just wait a little while longer and see how this develops - meanwhile guess who named the Dinosaurs - twinc

btw Eddie to be perfectly correct Dinosaurs did not exist until the 18th century for that is when the word Dinosaur first appeared - twinc

 

[COPLAND_3]

Is 6days too much or too little,so how about 6seconds,minutes.hours,weeks,months,years
or hundreds,thousands,millions and billions of years.How does this sound 6seconds shall thou labour and rest on the 7th second and keep it holy and go to Sunday mass every seven seconds or shall we try one of the other suggested options with evening and morning was the first second and the second second or shall we try one of the other options.So how long would a day be in the thousand or millions of years or the 30days of the non stop rain of the Flood - some Flood that some even say was only local and not global - so it really maskes more sense just to take God’s word - twinc

Are you suggesting that Scripture does not use symbolize, and that we should take every word and number to be as is? So when Scripture says that Christ will reign for a 1000 years then it is to be understood exactly 1000? Or when the Psalms says, “He remembers his covenant forever, the word he commanded, for a thousand generations,” does that mean after a 1000 generations and no more?

 

[thistle]

btw Eddie to be perfectly correct Dinosaurs did not exist until the 18th century for that is when the word Dinosaur first appeared - twinc

First what you say is misleading. The word dinosaur may be relatively modern (1842) but the creatures that word is used to describe lived between 65 million and 230 million years ago.

Secondly in one of your other posts you seem to be implying (correct me if I am wrong) that we should accept that creation happened in 6 literal 24 hour periods. Well the Church does not expect us to accept that so why should you. The Church (not you or I) was given authority to interpret Scripture. The Church allows us to believe or not believe in 6 literal 24 hour periods.

 

[twinc]

Are you suggesting that Scripture does not use symbolize, and that we should take every word and number to be as is? So when Scripture says that Christ will reign for a 1000 years then it is to be understood exactly 1000? Or when the Psalms says, “He remembers his covenant forever, the word he commanded, for a thousand generations,” does that mean after a 1000 generations and no more?

COPLAND - You have the problem,not I,since you seem to accept that a day is not a day but could be seconds or millions of years.So how long,here,would you like your thousand years to be.I have already stated not my personal opinion or interpretation or preference but the Church requires that the literal or obvious be accepted unless reason or necessity dictate otherwise.Since the onus or proof lies with the one who deviates.The Church does not say only or always but never says that the literal or obvious must be rejected or play second fiddle.I do not have to account for my literal or obvious interpretation or conclusion - anyway why accept all sorts of crazy and dubious alternatives of mice and men and devils and reject the original as the word of God - twinc

 

[twinc]

First what you say is misleading. The word dinosaur may be relatively modern (1842) but the creatures that word is used to describe lived between 65 million and 230 million years ago.

Secondly in one of your other posts you seem to be implying (correct me if I am wrong) that we should accept that creation happened in 6 literal 24 hour periods. Well the Church does not expect us to accept that so why should you. The Church (not you or I) was given authority to interpret Scripture. The Church allows us to believe or not believe in 6 literal 24 hour periods.

Thistle - I am informed that thorns and thistles have been found in strata supposedly laid down millions of years before man appeared.It seems not many know this or have been so informed.Nowhere or never has the Church or does the Church say that the literal 6days must be rejected and not accepted.So why in preference accept non science and nonsense and the plans of mice and men and devils and reject the words of God - twinc

 

[twinc]

First what you say is misleading. The word dinosaur may be relatively modern (1842) but the creatures that word is used to describe lived between 65 million and 230 million years ago.

Secondly in one of your other posts you seem to be implying (correct me if I am wrong) that we should accept that creation happened in 6 literal 24 hour periods. Well the Church does not expect us to accept that so why should you. The Church (not you or I) was given authority to interpret Scripture. The Church allows us to believe or not believe in 6 literal 24 hour periods.

Dinosaur bones have been found that should not have been found but should have disintegrated or mineralized after millions of years.The truth of the matter can be found in the words of God that man and dinosaurs were created together on the sixth day and lived together, without each eating the other as vegetarians[herbivores] - twinc

 

[PeterK]

twinc,
The Genesis narratives are fascinating reads and fully inspired no doubt. You and I are just going to have to agree to disagree regarding the degree of literal fact that one must believe in the creation narratives. For me the opening chapters of the bible are by far more theology that natural history. I’ve only seen confusion result from too literal a reading. We are asked by the Church to unite Faith and Reason, not create a competition between the two. Most extreme literal readings of the creation narratives are not reasonable, i.e. they lead to questions like, ‘did Adam name the dinosaurs?’ ‘Did every species of animal sail in the ark?’
etc., etc. The Church, to be sure, will let us know what we need to hang on to regarding historical fact of a passage.
I use the Catechism as a guide for determining literal interpretation.
However, again, I’m not the interpretation czar. God speaks and acts in mysterious and unknown ways. If your approach is working for you - go for it.

good reading to you,

Peter K

 

[twinc]

First what you say is misleading. The word dinosaur may be relatively modern (1842) but the creatures that word is used to describe lived between 65 million and 230 million years ago.

Secondly in one of your other posts you seem to be implying (correct me if I am wrong) that we should accept that creation happened in 6 literal 24 hour periods. Well the Church does not expect us to accept that so why should you. The Church (not you or I) was given authority to interpret Scripture. The Church allows us to believe or not believe in 6 literal 24 hour periods.

What matters really is not what you or I accept or even accept what we think the Curch accepts and has always accepted.In this wise go to www.DaylightOrigins.com and click on Ireland and also go to www.ScriptureCatholic.com - go down L/H column and click on science or try any really Catholic website - twinc

 

[COPLAND_3]

COPLAND - You have the problem,not I,since you seem to accept that a day is not a day but could be seconds or millions of years.So how long,here,would you like your thousand years to be.I have already stated not my personal opinion or interpretation or preference but the Church requires that the literal or obvious be accepted unless reason or necessity dictate otherwise.Since the onus or proof lies with the one who deviates.The Church does not say only or always but never says that the literal or obvious must be rejected or play second fiddle.I do not have to account for my literal or obvious interpretation or conclusion - anyway why accept all sorts of crazy and dubious alternatives of mice and men and devils and reject the original as the word of God - twinc

Despite your overly defensive tone and overplay of sarcasm I will try to have some dialogue about this. But back to my question, do you take every word to mean exactly what it says all the time, or does Scripture use language sometimes in human terms in order to express things that would otherwise be too complex for most people to grasp? The Church teaches that Scripture uses language like that. I’m not criticizing anyone for interpreting the days of Creation as literal 24 hour periods, the Early Church Fathers wrestled with the Creation account themselves. You mention the Church teaches this or that, here is what the Catechism says, 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. I’m not saying that you are wrong by believing that it is a literal 24 hour days, but I take the position that there was intervals of time that I cannot dogmatically say for sure what time span it was.

 

[twinc]

twinc,
The Genesis narratives are fascinating reads and fully inspired no doubt. You and I are just going to have to agree to disagree regarding the degree of literal fact that one must believe in the creation narratives. For me the opening chapters of the bible are by far more theology that natural history. I’ve only seen confusion result from too literal a reading. We are asked by the Church to unite Faith and Reason, not create a competition between the two. Most extreme literal readings of the creation narratives are not reasonable, i.e. they lead to questions like, ‘did Adam name the dinosaurs?’ ‘Did every species of animal sail in the ark?’
etc., etc. The Church, to be sure, will let us know what we need to hang on to regarding historical fact of a passage.
I use the Catechism as a guide for determining literal interpretation.
However, again, I’m not the interpretation czar. God speaks and acts in mysterious and unknown ways. If your approach is working for you - go for it.

good reading to you,

Peter K

there is really no problem,except the ones people make for themselves - for sure every kind sailed in the ark so where ever did you get the idea of species[you must stop reading those crazy non science and nonsense books and stick with the word of God that does not and cannot misled but if you must and persist please keep it to yourself,As to the Church letting us know she has indeed already done so via Tradition and Church Fathers etc - see for yourself at www.ScriptureCatholic.com - check again and see the Catechism
agrees with the rule re interpretation and so it must,no problem - twinc