creation

  • Thread starter Thread starter aarodad
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
DEAR trumpet152

IN SCRIPTURE EVERY TIME THE HEBREW WORD YOM IS USED WITH A NUMERICAL ADJECTIVE IT DOES MEAN A 24 HOUR DAY. THE BIBLE IS THE BEST COMMENTARY ON THE BIBLE.

BY THE WAY KARL BARTH IS A DISCREDITED LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN THE PROTESTANT WORLD.
 
40.png
aarodad:
DEAR trumpet152

IN SCRIPTURE EVERY TIME THE HEBREW WORD YOM IS USED WITH A NUMERICAL ADJECTIVE IT DOES MEAN A 24 HOUR DAY. THE BIBLE IS THE BEST COMMENTARY ON THE BIBLE.
Click to expand...
With all due respect, have you studied Hebrew? What you are doing here is stating that "in the Bible, YOM only means a 24 hour day, because YOM means a 24 hour day according to my interpretation of the Bible. This is circular reasoning.
40.png
aarodad:
BY THE WAY KARL BARTH IS A DISCREDITED LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN THE PROTESTANT WORLD.
Click to expand...
Again, with all due respect, this is patent nonsense. Have you actually studied Barth? Barth represented the “Neo-Orthodox” school of German Reformed Christianity EXPLICITING REJECTING the liberal theology coming from Europe in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. He has neither been discredited, nor was he a liberal in any but the most fundamentalist sense of the word. You just have your church history facts incorrect here.
 
I Repeat: In Scripture Every Time The Hebrew Word Yom Is Used With A Numerical Adjective It Does Refer To A 24 Hour Day. Sorry If That Does Not Fit Your Theology But It Is A Fact. Again One Of The Fundamental Rules Of Bible Interpretation Is That Scripture Interprets Scripture.
 
40.png
javelin:
Elzee,

Nice list.

The only thing in this list that I don’t think is clear is #4. Did we come from Adam and Eve, or Adam or Eve?

I guess it could be a bit of both. There could have been a “group” of almost-humans, then came Adam and from him (in some way), Eve. They “group” continued to life and procreate, but only the genetic offspring of Adam and Eve were blessed with souls, and only they survived long-term, thus we are all descended from them.

Thanks!

Peace,
javelin
Click to expand...
The following is from Pope Pius XII’s encyclical Humani Generis. It was summarized in our class stating that the 1909 Pontifical Biblical Commission confirmed that ‘Adam and Eve did exist’ and one of the things we must believe is the oneness of the human race and we all share the same first parents.

Here’s part of Humani Generis:
"… the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own (Cf. Romans 5:12-19, Council of Trent, Session V, canon 1-4) (HG 37). "

Not sure where Jeff Cavins got all the points I mentioned above, but this one was included in the workbook.
 
40.png
aarodad:
I Repeat: In Scripture Every Time The Hebrew Word Yom Is Used With A Numerical Adjective It Does Refer To A 24 Hour Day. Sorry If That Does Not Fit Your Theology But It Is A Fact. Again One Of The Fundamental Rules Of Bible Interpretation Is That Scripture Interprets Scripture.
Click to expand...
I have never heard that one of the fundamental rules of bible interpretation is the scripture interprets itself. Can’t you use outside sources, historical and language sources for example?
 
40.png
deb1:
I have never heard that one of the fundamental rules of bible interpretation is the scripture interprets itself. Can’t you use outside sources, historical and language sources for example?
Click to expand...
I have heard that it is important to interpret Biblical texts in context with the rest of the Scriptures, but it was always referring to interpretation of newer books in light of older ones. For example, when we see certain imagery used in the New Testament, it is helpful, and sometimes crucial to the understanding of the imagery to take into account how that same imagery is used in the Old Testament. The reasoning behind this is that Jewish contemporaries of the original authors would know the Old Testament and “connect” the imagery in the new with its common usage, which we can understand from the Old.

In this case, however, we’re talking about the first book of the Bible, and cannot use older texts as a reference for understanding potential symbolism.

Peace,
javelin
 
40.png
aarodad:
I Repeat: In Scripture Every Time The Hebrew Word Yom Is Used With A Numerical Adjective It Does Refer To A 24 Hour Day. Sorry If That Does Not Fit Your Theology But It Is A Fact. Again One Of The Fundamental Rules Of Bible Interpretation Is That Scripture Interprets Scripture.
Click to expand...
A fact? A FACT??? ACCORDING TO WHOM???

With all due respect, you have said nothing.

I apologize if I offend . . . it is not my intention.

I asked you a direct question. Have you studied Hebrew?

I have. I STRONGLY suspect that you have not.

If I am wrong, I will apologize.

I do not accept your “facts” as they have no basis in anything.

Who says that “One of the Fundamental Rules Of Bible Interpretation is that Scripture Interprets Scripture”? Where is THAT in the BIBLE.

Don’t try to play fundie games with me . . . I have read the Bible straight through in virtually every major English translation . . . AND I HAVE studied BOTH Hebrew and Greek . . . something I suspect that you cannot claim.

You have STILL not answered my questions to your post . . . AND you STILL have not answered your slander against Karl Barth.

Unless you can demonstrate to me that you have the SLIGHTEST idea as to what you are talking about, this is my last communication with you.

Remember . . . you have NO authority to interpret Scripture. It was not written to you; it was not informed by you; it was not canonized by you. It belongs to the CHURCH which you seem to have rejected. May God forgive you.
 
40.png
deb1:
I have never heard that one of the fundamental rules of bible interpretation is the scripture interprets itself. Can’t you use outside sources, historical and language sources for example?
Click to expand...
The notion that the Scripture interprets itself is fundamentally Protestant . . . and not only Protestant (because there are many outstanding Protestant historians and theologians) but radical fundamentalist.
 
I think taking the Bible literally can lead to many problems. For example, light existed before the sun. Gen 1:14 also says that God created the bodies in the heaven to divide night from day. However, he had already divided light from dark. I will admit that this does not make sense to me.

However, I think trying to fit the Bible into our current understanding of the world creates more problems. For example, the word firmament is not the actual translation. However, at the time, people thought that stars were holes in a wall that let the light of heaven shine through (which is a nice thought).

Science and the Bible have been head to head many times before. So far, it is science that is constantly revising it’s portrayal of the world, while the Bible has remained constant. The Bible has been proven right in many cases.

For example, one of the major reasons we think the earth is as old as it is is because of carbon dating. However, this method of dating operates under assumptions that could easily be wrong. (Consequently, it has been shown that carbon dating techniques can provide drastically different dates for bones in the same skeleton. Also, modern day animal bones have been dated as being 1000s of years old.)

Also, science has now recognized that the channeled-scab lands were created very quickly. This opens the door for massive land features to be made quickly, like the Grand Canyon. It has been proven that coal can be made in a mater of months. The list goes on.

If we pit our science against the word of God, I’ll take God every time. Remember, everyone thought they were smart when they thought stars were holes letting heaven’s light in. They also laughed at Columbus. Science has been wrong about major issues before, and there is no reason to believe that it will not be revised again.
 
In response to the OP question, I’ll try to summarize by saying that the Church does not require us to believe in a literal reading of Genesis, nor does she require us to disbelieve that Genesis is a literal account of creation.

Re-read some of the previous posts to see what the Church has elevated to dogma regarding Genesis. These things cannot be disputed.

Peace,
javelin
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top