Apologetics a "Copout"?

[hurst]

Mike O:

…
For instance, Genesis 1 and 2 offer mutually exclusive accounts.

Either God created animals first and people second or people first and animals second.

Why do people think these two accounts are contradictory? I don’t think they are. One focuses on the days of creation as a whole, the next covers the generations.

As for the animals, they were created before man. In the second, account, God brings them to Adam afterwards, but they were already created. It seems to me that He planned on making Eve (“let us make him a help like unto himself”), but first arranged for Adam to realize the animals weren’t like him (“And the Lord God having formed out of the ground all the beasts … brought them to Adam … but for Adam there was not found a helper like himself.”).

So I find it easy to reconcile the two accounts.

This is not to defend the “JEPD” theory, which is not Church teaching and in fact makes conclusions contrary to Church teaching.

hurst

 

[Mike_O]

Regarding the passage about Cain being marked so others would not stone him, it was my impression that this event occurred well into human history. It should not be forgotten that Adam lived to be hundreds of years old, as probably did Cain. By this point, then, there must have been many people around.

This gives rise to another problem regarding the generation of people. If the Church accepts evolution and the existence of ape-men that were ultimately endowed with a human soul, how else could humans have been generated except by incest?

The Church rejects any notion that there were pre-existing humans before Adam or a large group of them and teaches instead that all humans came from just two people. In this case, incest must have taken place.

 

[hurst]

Mike O:

The Church rejects any notion that there were pre-existing humans before Adam or a large group of them and teaches instead that all humans came from just two people. In this case, incest must have taken place.

That is correct. However, that is not the only time it had to happen. After the flood, it is obvious that cousins had to have relations. Furthermore, even within Israel, if a man dies without children, his brother was expected to have relations with his wife. These were all required for the obvious reason.

hurst

 

[Mike_O]

If incest was allowed, this would seem to contravene Deuteronomy’s prohibition of it.

As for the flood, what does the Church teach about its scope?

Was it termed “global” as an error of the writers who were unaware of the breadth and size of the world, or was it in fact something which wiped out all nations and all continents everywhere?

It would be interesting also to see what people have to say about some of the initial questions above. I think this is a useful apologetics discussion.

 

[hurst]

Mike O:

If incest was allowed, this would seem to contravene Deuteronomy’s prohibition of it.

You must be referring to Leviticus 18 in the Law of Moses.

Indeed, that law forbids incest within a certain degree. By the way, this Law came 430 years after the time of Abraham. Abraham himself was married to his step-sister (Gen 20:12). Tobias also married his uncle’s daughter. (Tob 8:9).

And even though one is forbidden to marry his brother’s wife (Lev 20:21), he is required to marry her in case his brother died without leaving a child (Deut 25:5-10).

It is then clear that the incest which was required at the time of Adam and Eve, or of Noah, or of the tribes of Israel, was only permitted under certain conditions for purposes of posterity.
Mike O:

As for the flood, what does the Church teach about its scope?

Was it termed “global” as an error of the writers who were unaware of the breadth and size of the world, or was it in fact something which wiped out all nations and all continents everywhere?

First of all, the Church teaches that there is no “error” in Scripture, because God is the Author. We might not understand something correctly, but that does not mean the writer misunderstood. The writer might be writing about someone else who misunderstood (e.g. “Ps 52:1 The fool said in his heart, There is no God”)

But even apart from this, it is obvious that it encompassed the entire world, because the water went above the mountains! Just think of the recent flooding caused by the hurricane surges of 20 feet. And it lasted for months.

hurst

 

[misterX]

Mike O:

1. Evolution and Genesis. This was a contentious topic.

One person pointed out that to take the Bible at its face value, the Earth would need to be 6,000 years old.

How long ago does the bible say that the earth was created?
Mike O:

Geological evidence does not support a global flood a la Noah’s Ark

Where does it say global. Earth doesn’t mean the same as it does today. Earth more than likely meant the land they knew of not the “world”
Mike O:

Men have existed for 2,000,000 years and evolved from ape-life Cro Magnons to Neanderthals, etc., up until modern homo sapien form.

Man did not evolve from neanderthals.
Mike O:

Therefore, the story of Adam being 6,000 years old and the first men does not support the fossil records that apparently indicate many men existing at once and evolving from apes rather than a single man and woman

How long was Adam in the garden of eden, 1 week 1 year 1 million years, 1 billion years?
Mike O:

Inaccurate scientific claims are made in the Bible such as the sun revolving around the Earth, etc.

Well i’m not aware of where this passage is. (not that i doubt its there, i’m just a bible person so to speak)

1. The sins of the Church.

Mike O:

The Crusades, the Inquisition, the persecution of Galileo and the sex abuse scandal even today with cardinals elevated to their status by the Pope having transferred offending priests to other parishes all offer troubles to many of these people.

1 How is defending Christianity a sin? Islam was for the large part the agressor. I suppose you say the Russians were acting sinfuly when defending themselves against the nazis?
2 The pope "comdemmend Galileo, because every scienctist of his day said galileo was wrong and the pope did not want galileo spreading what every scienctist at the time was saying was a lie. I don’t get it You say when the Pope agrees with every scientist on scienctific therories he is a genius,but in other cases where he doesn’t agree with them all he is acting in sin. poor man he can’t win can he?
3 As far as the sexual abuses go, where did the Pope condone these things? Sure bishops did and they make me sick, they should be striped of all their powers and thrown out ofthe Church and left for the wolves.
Mike O:

The fact that the Church seems to “cop out” with regards to evolution, having once vehemently defended creationism before backing down when science appeared to provide incontrovertible evidence of it. This person said that the Church will just surrender its beliefs as science disproves them.

The Church doesn’t support fully evolution. Incontrovertible evidence? such as?
Mike O:

I thought it was ludicrous, but as regards creationism, he did have a somewhat valid point.

No he hasn’t

I attempted to point out that the actions of a few do not reflect the validity of the faith itself, but nonetheless, it was a point put out there.
Mike O:

The 1968 commission called by Pope Paul VI which had bishops and cardinals as well as married couples supporting contraception within marriage. It was alleged that Pope Paul, extremely indecisive, decided on Humanae Vitae’s teaching only because he could not change the teaching as it would cast great doubt on the Church’s moral authority.

How so?

therest seem to be Bible tracts, i’ll leave that to someone who knows the bible better than i. (which would be just about everyone else on this board)

 

[hurst]

Mike O:

…
It would be interesting also to see what people have to say about some of the initial questions above. I think this is a useful apologetics discussion.

There have been a number of answers.

Which ones do you feel have not yet been satisfactorily addressed?

hurst