C
clem456
Guest
Oops my bad.
- Status
Z
Zipply
Guest
The Fall was not gradual.
Rather than torture scripture in this way, to try to make the Catholic Church a haven for your fundamentalism, why don’t you just follow Church teaching on the matter and admit that the OT uses symbolic language (CCC and Dei Verbum) and don’t force a literal reading where reason makes one impossible or so much less likely than a symbolic one (Provendentisdimus Deus and Saint Augustine) lest you bring disrepute on the Holy Scriptures in front if non-Christians who do know medical science and/or near Eastern historical mythology (Saint Augustine).
Yes.
Z
Zipply
Guest
No.
B
buffalo
Guest
These are the teachings of the church not mine.
*] Our first parents, before the Fall, were endowed with sanctifying grace. (De fide.)
*] The donum rectitudinis or integritatis in the narrower sense, i.e., the freedom from irregular desire. (Sent. fidei proxima.)
*] The donum immortalitatis, i.e.,bodily immortality. (De fide.)
*] The donum impassibilitatis, i.e., the freedom from suffering. (Sent. communis.)
*] The donum scientiae, i.e., a knowledge of natural and supernatural truths infused by God. (Sent. communis.)
*] Adam received sanctifying grace not merely for himself, but for all his posterity. (Sent. certa.)
Z
Zipply
Guest
So? The Fall, still, was not gradual. Deal with it.
G
grannymh
Guest
I agree. The Fall, as in the Catholic teachings on Original Sin, was an instantaneous result of the first human’s freely committed disobedience. However, Adam’s human nature was wounded not destroyed.
M
mikekle
Guest
so, if this is true, how old was Jesus really at the time of his crucifixion?
F
FrDavid96
Guest
That’s the second time you’ve posted that.
It still has nothing to do with whether or not the ages of persons in Genesis was ever intended to be taken literally.
Typing a lot of words in Latin won’t prove anything. don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#jargon
I suggest actually reading what the Church does teach.
Read the Vatican II Document Dei Verbum. The Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation.
Especially read #12
We must read Scripture in the spirit in which it was written. What you’re advocating here is not the spirit in which it was written, but in a way entirely different (and even opposed) to the original intent of the texts.- However, since God speaks in Sacred Scripture through men in human fashion, (6) the interpreter of Sacred Scripture, in order to see clearly what God wanted to communicate to us, should carefully investigate what meaning the sacred writers really intended, and what God wanted to manifest by means of their words.
But, since Holy Scripture must be read and interpreted in the sacred spirit in which it was written, (9) no less serious attention must be given to the content and unity of the whole of Scripture if the meaning of the sacred texts is to be correctly worked out. The living tradition of the whole Church must be taken into account along with the harmony which exists between elements of the faith. It is the task of exegetes to work according to these rules toward a better understanding and explanation of the meaning of Sacred Scripture, so that through preparatory study the judgment of the Church may mature. For all of what has been said about the way of interpreting Scripture is subject finally to the judgment of the Church, which carries out the divine commission and ministry of guarding and interpreting the word of God. (10)
vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.html
A
Aloysium
Guest
I agree, unless someone can prove otherwise, which I have absolutely no idea how they could.
But, it shows the degree to which science is based on assumptions; seriously, exactly why couldn’t they?
I have no reason to doubt that this sounded just as absurd in the face of daily reality, then as it does now. There is no new scientific knowledge that makes this seem more unreal now than then.
The authors however, chose to include these really incredibly long life spans.
And how dogmatic some people are in their beliefs of stuff that’s not been revealed, but simply made up - science assumes so, as it assumes there is no God and that is how it arrives at theories about the beginning of man which are in conflict with what has been revealed.
This age business does not matter to me one way or the other. However, I am interested.
Zipply, why don’t you figure out some way to know how long people lived 1,000,000 years ago. You would also have to ascertain what is man, which is not possible scientifically, as there is no way to detect/measure/isolate what is obvious - the soul.
G
grannymh
Guest
There is more to this than meets the eye.
C
clem456
Guest
The age business does matter to me. It conveys a truth. And the truth it conveys is not that people lived for literally hundreds of years. The actual ages listed are symbolic, as Father said. A larger truth is at work.
I agree, unless someone can prove otherwise, which I have absolutely no idea how they could.
But, it shows the degree to which science is based on assumptions; seriously, exactly why couldn’t they?
I have no reason to doubt that this sounded just as absurd in the face of daily reality, then as it does now. There is no new scientific knowledge that makes this seem more unreal now than then.
The authors however, chose to include these really incredibly long life spans.
And how dogmatic some people are in their beliefs of stuff that’s not been revealed, but simply made up - science assumes so, as it assumes there is no God and that is how it arrives at theories about the beginning of man which are in conflict with what has been revealed.
This age business does not matter to me one way or the other. However, I am interested.
Zipply, why don’t you figure out some way to know how long people lived 1,000,000 years ago. You would also have to ascertain what is man, which is not possible scientifically, as there is no way to detect/measure/isolate what is obvious - the soul.
Good science does not make unsupported made-up assumptions, which is what it seems you are implying. Science does not assume there is no God. Some scientists make that assumption, but the nature of God is not a matter of scientific proof or disproof.
Every Catholic should know that Catholicism has a long history of supporting scientific study. Faith and reason should never be at odds. Solid scientific principles should never be scoffed at, as reason is a gift from God.
And, as has been stated several times, the bible is not, was never intended to be, a science textbook or literalist history book. It has elements of both, but the truth is larger than those two fields of study. If some doubt this, please look at the nature of a parable.
G
grannymh
Guest
That is correct. It is the interpreters of the material/physical realm who make “assumptions” about the spiritual realm.
In response to this comment: “Good science does not make unsupported made-up assumptions, which is what it seems you are implying.”
The first principle of Good Science is to observe without prejudice. That being said, there is a time factor in the Scientific (inductive) Method which is either present or past. In dealing with the past, science has to depend on either what is currently available for observation or on assumptions of what was previously observable in our material/physical natural environment. Thus, when observing the material/physical world going thousands of years backwards, it is common practice to use assumptions. Note: these assumptions can be reasonably valid. For example. Today’s formula for water can be assumed to be accurate going thousands of years backwards.
However, humankind is not the same as water. For example, the Coalescence theory or model is an assumption referred to in the 1995 paper by F.J. Ayala. In addition, adaptations of the Wright-Fisher model or assumption attempt to overcome some inherent difficulties. Recently, I saw a reference to a different new model for tracing genetic history. My point is that in the absence of observable data, it is reasonable to use mathematical assumptions etc. Regardless of what theory or model is used, complete observable information is still missing. Note: being able to use DNA gleaned from fossils does present ancient information. But this evidence itself cannot rule out every possibility.
An universal denial of the possibility of two first sole parents of humankind is not warranted. Research papers can offer the improbability of Adam and Eve, but they cannot apodictically deny the possibility of that loving couple.
Yes, Good Science can use assumptions regarding the early generations of humankind’s decomposing anatomy. That is part of common sense. We, too, have to use common sense and recognize that the whole story of our origin does not depend on this or that published research paper. We are a peerless species, even though genetics tell us that we share genes with other species. Sharing genes is common sense since we are classified as vertebrates.
When it comes to Genesis, the ages of the early generations, and the origin of humanity, real common sense has us exploring the spiritual realm in addition to the material/physical natural science realm.
This link addresses the fundamental Catholic doctrine of two sole fully-complete parents of all humanity.
hprweb.com/2014/07/time-to-abandon-the-genesis-story/
Z
Zipply
Guest
This equation of science with ‘made up’ is staggering in its ignorance and backwardness. The Church has never asked any of its members to believe that science is ‘made up’. That’s crackpot.
What a wonderful red herring you’ve proposed. Since that’s not the issue under discussion, I’ll correct it for you:
‘Zipply, why don’t you figure out some way to know how long these Biblical figures described in Genesis actually lived?’
Sure thing, pardner.
They were human. Check.
They were fallen. Check.
They had essentially no medical technology. Check.
They were living in the ancient Near East. Check.
Do we know how long people lived under these conditions, excepting warfare? Yep.
Average age reached for the entire population would have been about 25.
Average age of death for those who reached adulthood would have been about 40.
Maximum life span would have been no higher than modern East Asians, so about 120 max for males, 130 max for females, these reached very rarely.
These are approximate values, but they’re close for all pre-technological societies in temperate climes. If someone wants, they can do research and nail it down even tighter. It won’t go up, though, because nutrition was not consistent over an entire 130 year potential life span in the ancient near East, and periodic famines were deadly. Also, modern Asians do not suffer from nearly the level of parasite infestation that archaeology has revealed the ancients in the Near East suffered from.
Z
Zipply
Guest
Ah, Granny, I can see you are also attempting to posit a gradual Fall, where the ancients in Genesis were a ‘little less Fallen’. Nice, but that’s not Catholic, now is it?
G
grannymh
Guest
Goodness Gracious!!! My post 33 does not mention Original Sin as readers will find out.
In fact, my post 27 agrees with you that the Fall aka Original Sin was not gradual. I can understand how that simple post could have been missed.
Z
Zipply
Guest
Granny, you’re missing a large part of what you’re judging -
A lot of Catholics, like yourself, imagine that because it cannot be precisely proven from fossil evidence that there were not two original parents of the human race (i.e. the absence of direct evidence for Adam and Eve is not evidence of the absence of Adam and Eve). Because of this, you say that it is unscientific to assert that two original human parents did not exist.
This is incorrect. There is a very simple principle at work which never seems to enter into this debate.
The only two processes proposed for the origin of the bodies of Adam and Eve are evolution and special creation.
Special creation CAN produce a breeding population of two, exactly two, and only two individuals in a species at one time.
Evolution CANNOT do this. Pose the question to any biologist, and they will tell you that evlolution is a process that involves a viable breeding population, separated by one or more vectors from other breeding populations until it can no longer re-join and interbreed with these others due to drift of the genome of the separated population. The process is: separation - many generations while separated - speciation - continued change.
You cannot do this with two. Therefore, Adam and Eve cannot be the result of evolution.
Therefore, the only available position is: the bodies of Adam and Eve were the result of special creation and are not part of the evolutionary sequence.
This should be no surprise to anyone, since if they were part of the evolutionary sequence, their immediate ancestors would not possess the preternatural gifts. How would that even work?
C
clem456
Guest
- You don’t really understand what Granny said
- You would do well to read what people within the Church actually say about the topic. It does not match what you assert.
Good place to start:
ewtn.com/library/papaldoc/jp961022.htm
B
buffalo
Guest
I am not sure where this “gradual fall” idea came from.
Science does know each generation has 200 or so more deleterious mutations than the previous.
**Dr. John Sanford “Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome” **
Z
Zipply
Guest
Simple. When people try to force a literal interpretation on these verses concerning very long lives recorded in the OT, inevitably (as in this thread) someone opines that maybe it was possible because these people were closer generationally to unfallen Adam and therefore there were still some good effects of original holiness active. Like this person below:
…which is you. Whether you realize it or not, you’re positing the same thing.
Think about it.
- Status