Adam and the animals?

  • Thread starter Thread starter twinc
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Modern humans represent living matters most complex form. When looked at as a progression of the simple to the complex, the attribute that seems to drive complexity is* cognizance.*

Jesus can be called the eternally generated Cognizance of God who took human form.

Something to keep in mind when thinking about Adam’s task of calling the animals by name is that to name is to know and to know is to be like.

Knowledge is a union of likeness. Adam named Woman Eve after the fall as if he had to come to know her again after the fall.

The many references that Jesus made to knowing and likeness and coming in the Name of God offer food for this meditation.

If we consider the cognizance of God as the final end of living matter and that Adam’s preternatural cognizance of himself at the time he named the animals, it’s not too far a reach to think that the animals that Adam named included the special essence of all animals created in the light of the sixth day with Adam.:twocents:
 
twinc said:
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
Click to expand...
twinc,
OK, I checked the Catechism…

CCC337
… 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.

CCC375
The Church, interpreting **the symbolism of biblical language **in an authentic way, in the light of the New Testament and Tradition, teaches…

CCC390
The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative LANGUAGE, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man.

… and, as nice a site as ScriptureCatholic must be - I think I’ll stick with the Catechism as it is true Magisterial teaching direct from Rome as opposed to an individual’s private endeavor.

Those CCC entries affirm my earlier statements regarding literal readings.

Regarding your suggestion “… please keep it to yourself.” You are certainly free to offer whatever suggestions you desire. However, and very fortunately, you do not determine what can or cannot be posted on this forum. It is a blatant conceit on your part to suggest you can.

But, hey, again, we don’t agree. I don’t prefer what you prefer. Something you might be interested in is a Protestant site AnswersinGenesis. They are ultra-literalist also. They are the one’s building the museum that will house natural history dioramas depicting dinosaurs and man existing at the same time. There is no malice in my offering this site to you. I believe someone of your ilk will find their explanations and defense of an ultra-literal reading of Genesis to be, at least, interesting.

And again, if your approach draws you closer to Christ and his Church then don’t stray the coarse.

best regards,

Peter K
 
The AIG museum is in America[USA] but here in UK we have had one for some time now built by CSM[creation science movement] in Portsmouth and here is where the Bible and true science meet and embrace unlike pseudo/phony non science and nonsense that is incompatible with the Bible - twinc
 
twinc said:
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
Click to expand...
Did you see the cartoon where the two dinosaurs are watching the Ark sail away, and the one says to the other, “Oh ****, that was today?”
 
I heard that God didn’t originally create the earth empty and void, but it was the end result of satan’s rebelion. Interesting fact, the end of the last Ice Age is strikingly close to the beginning date of creation.
 
MrZetterlund said:
I heard that God didn’t originally create the earth empty and void, but it was the end result of satan’s rebelion. Interesting fact, the end of the last Ice Age is strikingly close to the beginning date of creation.
Click to expand...
according to who? for it seems the Ice Age was a follow on to and a result of the global deluge[Noah’s Flood].Tropical vegetation has been found under the ice etc - twinc
 
CHRISTINE77 said:
Did you see the cartoon where the two dinosaurs are watching the Ark sail away, and the one says to the other, “Oh ****, that was today?”
Click to expand...
Could have happened,and supposedly this is why God Himself brought all the animals to Noah and the Ark - twinc
 
PeterK said:
twinc,
OK, I checked the Catechism…

CCC337
… 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.

CCC375
The Church, interpreting **the symbolism of biblical language **in an authentic way, in the light of the New Testament and Tradition, teaches…

CCC390
The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative LANGUAGE, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man.

… and, as nice a site as ScriptureCatholic must be - I think I’ll stick with the Catechism as it is true Magisterial teaching direct from Rome as opposed to an individual’s private endeavor.

Those CCC entries affirm my earlier statements regarding literal readings.

Regarding your suggestion “… please keep it to yourself.” You are certainly free to offer whatever suggestions you desire. However, and very fortunately, you do not determine what can or cannot be posted on this forum. It is a blatant conceit on your part to suggest you can.

But, hey, again, we don’t agree. I don’t prefer what you prefer. Something you might be interested in is a Protestant site AnswersinGenesis. They are ultra-literalist also. They are the one’s building the museum that will house natural history dioramas depicting dinosaurs and man existing at the same time. There is no malice in my offering this site to you. I believe someone of your ilk will find their explanations and defense of an ultra-literal reading of Genesis to be, at least, interesting.

And again, if your approach draws you closer to Christ and his Church then don’t stray the coarse.

best regards,

Peter K
Click to expand...
what do you mean must be,it is and it follows you did not go to the section as regards Scripture,Tradition and the almost unanimous consensus of the Church Fathers and not that of a single individual as you imply - The Catechism is not and has not been totally inerrant nor can it over rule “Proventissimus Deus”[St.Augustine/Pope Leo XIII] - btw re Catechism quotes,also see CCC115 and CCC116 - twinc
 
twinc said:
what do you mean must be,it is and it follows you did not go to the section as regards Scripture,Tradition and the almost unanimous consensus of the Church Fathers and not that of a single individual as you imply - The Catechism is not and has not been totally inerrant nor can it over rule “Proventissimus Deus”[St.Augustine/Pope Leo XIII] - btw re Catechism quotes,also see CCC115 and CCC116 - twinc
Click to expand...
twinc,

CCC115
According to an ancient tradition, one can distinguish between two senses of Scripture: the literal and the spiritual, the latter being subdivided into the allegorical, moral, and anagogical senses. The profound concordance of the four senses guarantees all its richness to the living reading of Scripture in the Church.

CCC116
The literal sense **is the meaning conveyed **by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: “All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal.”

The two CCC entries cited do not even imply that we have to believe every detail of the Genesis narrative to be historical fact. CCC115 states that there are two senses. OK, fine, I never disputed that. CCC116 states the literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words and the other sense build on this. OK, fine, I never disputed that either.

You seem to think I am incapable of comprehending the literal sense of the narrative or have abandoned it simply because I do not hold **every **detail of the creation narratives to be historical fact and do not then deduce from these ‘facts’ that Adam and dinosaurs coexisted. If this is your conclusion it is wrong. I am not disputing that a literal sense exists nor that it is essential in the correct interpretation of the passage. I understand - as well as the exegete has made it possible for me to understand - what the literal sense is conveying. I get it. It says God created everything in six days. The woman was made from one of Adam’s bones, a rib. Noah had ‘every kind’ of animal on earth in one floating vessel, and on, and on… I understand what the text is saying. However, regarding every single detail of the Genesis narrative in particular, I do not believe every detail to be historical fact. This non-belief of every detail does not erase the comprehension of the literal sense of the text and does not put into jeopardy the three spiritual senses that must build on this literal understanding - not belief. There is a difference between believing textual details to be historical fact and understanding what the text is saying. Again, the CCC informs the faithful which details must be held as historic fact. Adam coexisting with dinosaurs is not one them.

For example, a certain story to relates that a tortoise and a hare had a race in the forrest, and the tortoise won because the hare took a nap. I understand what the texts says, but I do not believe a tortoise and a hare negotiated terms of a competition and had a race in the forrest. Yet, even though I do not believe any of this to be true historical fact I can still* appreciate *the higher message of perseverance the story intends to impart to its audience. So to apply this example to our problem of believing as fact every detail in the Genesis creation narrative, the literal meaning is indeed understood, the literal meaning is not believed to be historical fact, the higher or moral/spiritual message is still appreciated AND believed even though the literal detail is not believed. So my take on the details poses no barrier to the other three spiritual senses.

Ultra-literal readings and defense of such readings seem to put people in very awkward situations rationally. For example, in an attempt to promote Adam and dinosaurs coexisting you have now turned to downgrading the value of the Catechism! By claiming, “The Catechism is not and has not been totally inerrant…” this leaves a open a loophole for you to possibly be right - I guess.

The Catechism also does not prohibit an ultra-literal reading. Your understanding is totally acceptable - it’s just not the only one - there’s room for others. Your ultra literal approach is fine. Again, I don’t get anything out of it, but if it’s part of what gets you out of bed and to Mass on Sunday - great, keep it up. And I am sincere not snide. My understanding is certainly lacking, but it works for me and is an understanding just like yours is an understanding and an attempt to make sense out of this world as we struggle to follow Christ.

The whole tenor of my posts should be summed up with the statement, “I’m not so sure about that approach.” It’s a healthy skepticism on my part - that’s all.

With that I am laying down my pen. You may have the last word on this matter which comes up too often.

best regards,

Peter K
 
twinc said:
what do you mean must be,it is and it follows you did not go to the section as regards Scripture,Tradition and the almost unanimous consensus of the Church Fathers and not that of a single individual as you imply - The Catechism is not and has not been totally inerrant nor can it over rule “Proventissimus Deus”[St.Augustine/Pope Leo XIII] - btw re Catechism quotes,also see CCC115 and CCC116 - twinc
Click to expand...
The Proventissimus Deus verse 15 is what I passionately live by, as I always consult the Church Fathers, and if anyone knows me the least bit then they know how true that is. But your extreme literalist approach does not resemble the Fathers approach, especially St. Augustine’s, upon whom that verse used an example of. You have strongly opposed me and others on here over taking literal approaches that don’t meet your standards, which seem more like extreme 19th and 20th century Independent Baptist standards. Speaking of St. Augustine, have you ever read his “Literal Interpretation of Genesis” or some of his other works on Creation found in the City of God, etc? I trust you have, but if not then take a look, because if Proventissimus Deus is your bread and butter in this dialogue then the Pope’s example of Augustine in that letter is not in support of the rigidness that your are pushing. I know that I cross some people the wrong way with my traditional and literal approach to the Bible, but when someone gets onto me for not being literal enough then that is saying something.
 
COPLAND_3 said:
The Proventissimus Deus verse 15 is what I passionately live by, as I always consult the Church Fathers, and if anyone knows me the least bit then they know how true that is. But your extreme literalist approach does not resemble the Fathers approach, especially St. Augustine’s, upon whom that verse used an example of. You have strongly opposed me and others on here over taking literal approaches that don’t meet your standards, which seem more like extreme 19th and 20th century Independent Baptist standards. Speaking of St. Augustine, have you ever read his “Literal Interpretation of Genesis” or some of his other works on Creation found in the City of God, etc? I trust you have, but if not then take a look, because if Proventissimus Deus is your bread and butter in this dialogue then the Pope’s example of Augustine in that letter is not in support of the rigidness that your are pushing. I know that I cross some people the wrong way with my traditional and literal approach to the Bible, but when someone gets onto me for not beishould be taken fshould be taken literallyng literal enough then that is saying something.
Click to expand...
Cardinal Ruffini stated that Augustine confessed that shortly after his conversion he had explained many things figuratively,which afterwards,he understood should be taken literally [Creation Rediscovered] - btw Augustine was sometimes right and sometimes wrong,this is because even as a saint he was not infallible - twinc
 
PeterK said:
twinc,

CCC115
According to an ancient tradition, one can distinguish between two senses of Scripture: the literal and the spiritual, the latter being subdivided into the allegorical, moral, and anagogical senses. The profound concordance of the four senses guarantees all its richness to the living reading of Scripture in the Church.

CCC116
The literal sense **is the meaning conveyed **by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: “All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal.”

The two CCC entries cited do not even imply that we have to believe every detail of the Genesis narrative to be historical fact. CCC115 states that there are two senses. OK, fine, I never disputed that. CCC116 states the literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words and the other sense build on this. OK, fine, I never disputed that either.

You seem to think I am incapable of comprehending the literal sense of the narrative or have abandoned it simply because I do not hold **every **detail of the creation narratives to be historical fact and do not then deduce from these ‘facts’ that Adam and dinosaurs coexisted. If this is your conclusion it is wrong. I am not disputing that a literal sense exists nor that it is essential in the correct interpretation of the passage. I understand - as well as the exegete has made it possible for me to understand - what the literal sense is conveying. I get it. It says God created everything in six days. The woman was made from one of Adam’s bones, a rib. Noah had ‘every kind’ of animal on earth in one floating vessel, and on, and on… I understand what the text is saying. However, regarding every single detail of the Genesis narrative in particular, I do not believe every detail to be historical fact. This non-belief of every detail does not erase the comprehension of the literal sense of the text and does not put into jeopardy the three spiritual senses that must build on this literal understanding - not belief. There is a difference between believing textual details to be historical fact and understanding what the text is saying. Again, the CCC informs the faithful which details must be held as historic fact. Adam coexisting with dinosaurs is not one them.

For example, a certain story to relates that a tortoise and a hare had a race in the forrest, and the tortoise won because the hare took a nap. I understand what the texts says, but I do not believe a tortoise and a hare negotiated terms of a competition and had a race in the forrest. Yet, even though I do not believe any of this to be true historical fact I can still* appreciate *the higher message of perseverance the story intends to impart to its audience. So to apply this example to our problem of believing as fact every detail in the Genesis creation narrative, the literal meaning is indeed understood, the literal meaning is not believed to be historical fact, the higher or moral/spiritual message is still appreciated AND believed even though the literal detail is not believed. So my take on the details poses no barrier to the other three spiritual senses.

Ultra-literal readings and defense of such readings seem to put people in very awkward situations rationally. For example, in an attempt to promote Adam and dinosaurs coexisting you have now turned to downgrading the value of the Catechism! By claiming, “The Catechism is not and has not been totally inerrant…” this leaves a open a loophole for you to possibly be right - I guess.

The Catechism also does not prohibit an ultra-literal reading. Your understanding is totally acceptable - it’s just not the only one - there’s room for others. Your ultra literal approach is fine. Again, I don’t get anything out of it, but if it’s part of what gets you out of bed and to Mass on Sunday - great, keep it up. And I am sincere not snide. My understanding is certainly lacking, but it works for me and is an understanding just like yours is an understanding and an attempt to make sense out of this world as we struggle to follow Christ.

The whole tenor of my posts should be summed up with the statement, “I’m not so sure about that approach.” It’s a healthy skepticism on my part - that’s all.

With that I am laying down my pen. You may have the last word on this matter which comes up too often.

best regards,

Peter K
Click to expand...
we cannot and must not pick and choose what we will accept or reject for the Bible is inerrant in all its parts.If any one part is rejected as faulty then all other parts could be faulty too. As regards the Catechism,we may well ask who guards the guards,for here you have placed your own intrepretation as to what CCC 337 says and means and fail to realise that it is the work that is symbolic not the days of creation etc - btw the catechism by its very silence accepts that as the Bible clearly tells us,Adam and the Dinosaurs were created together on the sixth day - why oh why chase after and accept phony alternatives rather than the original as the word of God who created all these things and was there - twinc
 
twinc said:
according to who? for it seems the Ice Age was a follow on to and a result of the global deluge[Noah’s Flood].Tropical vegetation has been found under the ice etc - twinc
Click to expand...
I thought the Bible only dated back 6,000 years? I said Lucifer’s rebellion cause the Ice Age ended around 10,0000 years ago. Where the story of creation picks up.
 
MrZetterlund said:
I thought the Bible only dated back 6,000 years? I said Lucifer’s rebellion cause the Ice Age ended around 10,0000 years ago. Where the story of creation picks up.
Click to expand...
The problem with that is there was human life more than 10,000 years ago. In fact, the city of Jericho, Israel, is believed to be about that old.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top