Did animals die before sin?

  • Thread starter Thread starter aball1035
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
InJesusItrust said:
I still have no clue why believe in some scientifically impossible events and not others. Logically, if methodological naturalism is false why is cosmology based on it true? Is it just a fear being called a fundamentalist?
Click to expand...
It is a question of truth.

What is true of natural science is true. What is not true of assertions by scientists is not true. If there is a miracle – well there is a miracle. If there is not a miracle then there is not a miracle.

There is no assertion to any miracle in terms of animals in Genesis. There is though a good deal of figurative language used.

“The Bible does not intend to be a natural science manual; rather, it wishes to make the authentic and profound truth of things understood.” ~Pope Benedict XVI
 
Bookcat said:
Such refers to their use by us. And the fact that they are not well persons. Not men.

Not as to if they could die before the fall.

Death entered – *for man *-- at the fall.
Click to expand...
Dumb animals. I would not under estimate their intelligence. I am wondering what would their purpose be in the new earth. Would we be eating some ? In Genesis God said he regretted making Man and animals.
I wonder why God regretted making animals ?
 
Science tells us that all humans couldn’t come from two first humans, the Church teaches otherwise.

The very assumption of the sciences is that there is no supernatural and this is plainly wrong. If you didn’t believe in the supernatural, this is one thing; why is it impossible to believe that Genesis can be literal in much of its passages? The other miracles we do believe though archaeologists find no evidence for the Exodus, for example.
.
 
shaky said:
Yes i did put that to them. Their response was God made man and woman to be fruitful and multiply because God had already fore-seen Adam would fall ?
Click to expand...
Such would not be the case. Rather unusual idea.
 
shaky said:
Dumb animals. I would not under estimate their intelligence. I am wondering what would their purpose be in the new earth. Would we be eating some ?
Click to expand...
(we will not need to eat)

We do not know what the reality of the “new heavens and new earth” will be exactly.

We do not know the “way in which the universe will be transformed”

scborromeo.org/ccc/p123a12.htm#VI
 
We got a few problems. The bible chronicles from Adam to Jesus without gaps. Is Noah a symbol, or is he a real person? Or Abraham who had Isaac at 99?

If the Passover did not happen, what the heck were Jews celebrating?

So many scientifically absurd things that leaves the bible discontinuous if they are mere allegory.
 
InJesusItrust said:
So many scientifically absurd things that leaves the bible discontinuous if they are mere allegory.
Click to expand...
I refer you to the Church and to good Biblical Scholars (Dr. Hahn et al). No one is saying the Bible is mere allegory.

Such is taking the thread off subject.
 
Bookcat said:
Huh. Passover happened.
Click to expand...
Try convincing a naturalist.

We believe other naturalist claims like the origins of life but now we are telling them they are wrong?

If Jews ate manna why can’t animals be vegetarian? The only objection we have is based on a naturalist worldview.

I am puzzled.:confused:
 
InJesusItrust said:
The only objection we have is based on a naturalist worldview.

I am puzzled.:confused:
Click to expand...
Actually no – the science of Theology. Understanding that the author is not seeking to give a scientific description and is using various figurative language.
 
There is much that can go into understanding a passage. Both of faith and of reason.

But certainly those who dismiss miracles – have embraced a rather wrong approach.
Faith and reason in the approach to Scripture
  1. I believe that what Pope John Paul II wrote about this question in his Encyclical Fides et Ratio can lead to a fuller understanding of exegesis and its relationship to the whole of theology. He stated that we should not underestimate “the danger inherent in seeking to derive the truth of sacred Scripture from the use of one method alone, ignoring the need for a more comprehensive exegesis which enables the exegete, together with the whole Church, to arrive at the full sense of the texts. Those who devote themselves to the study of sacred Scripture should always remember that the various hermeneutical approaches have their own philosophical underpinnings, which need to be carefully evaluated before they are applied to the sacred texts”.[115]
This far-sighted reflection enables us to see how a hermeneutical approach to sacred Scripture inevitably brings into play the proper relationship between faith and reason. Indeed, the secularized hermeneutic of sacred Scripture is the product of reason’s attempt structurally to exclude any possibility that God might enter into our lives and speak to us in human words. Here too, we need to urge a broadening of the scope of reason.[116] In applying methods of historical analysis, no criteria should be adopted which would rule out in advance God’s self-disclosure in human history. The unity of the two levels at work in the interpretation of sacred Scripture presupposes, in a word, the harmony of faith and reason. On the one hand, it calls for a faith which, by maintaining a proper relationship with right reason, never degenerates into fideism, which in the case of Scripture would end up in fundamentalism. On the other hand, it calls for a reason which, in its investigation of the historical elements present in the Bible, is marked by openness and does not reject a priori anything beyond its own terms of reference. In any case, the religion of the incarnate* Logos* can hardly fail to appear profoundly reasonable to anyone who sincerely seeks the truth and the ultimate meaning of his or her own life and history.

~ Pope Benedict XVI Verbum Domini
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top