- Status
?
Or Jesus “could have” preached in America, as the BoM has Him do, complete with colour picture
M
matahari
Guest
Hi Noel, Firstly I’m apologising for being rude to you on a previous post. That came about as a result of your expression " hasn’t got a clue " this expression irks me and when you used it about my post I found it irritating . OK Secondly I’d like to say [and I’m not referring to you] those who are most vocal , most numerous and loudest in a debate , it doesn’t necessarily follow that their argument is right. It simply means that that they are the loudest and most vocal.
So did you get a chance to look up any of the references which I posted.? I think you would be particularly impressed with the website of Creation Worldview Ministries. You owe it to yourself to see what genuine men of science are saying .
Slainte, Tonette
M
matahari
Guest
Many of the people who have taken up the baton for the defense of the Book of Genesis are Christian. Few are Catholic. But, let’s face it non-Catholic Christians understand the importance of defending Scriptural integrity. Those who despise them call them literalists or fundamentalists or flat earthers or whatever . It would seem on some of these threads that the way to win an argument is to ridicule or insult the person you disagree with.
If I said " I believe Jesus rose from the dead"
I believe Jesus had absolute power over the wind and the waves"
I believe Jesus raised a man who had been dead for four days and was rotting"
Would you call me fundamentalist stupid flat earther ?
Only a matter of time till the Atheists move on to the New Testament and begin to call believers the same names - since they have had such a resounding success in making people reject Genesis.
There are some excellent websites which explain the issues surrounding the Creation debate. Most of them have been set up by non-Catholic Christians. But, perhaps Catholics would rather be considered "intellectuals " rather than Bible-believing Christians. I sometimes wonder about the opinions expressed by people who describe themselves as Catholic ! ! ! !
If I said " I believe Jesus rose from the dead"
I believe Jesus had absolute power over the wind and the waves"
I believe Jesus raised a man who had been dead for four days and was rotting"
Would you call me fundamentalist stupid flat earther ?
Only a matter of time till the Atheists move on to the New Testament and begin to call believers the same names - since they have had such a resounding success in making people reject Genesis.
There are some excellent websites which explain the issues surrounding the Creation debate. Most of them have been set up by non-Catholic Christians. But, perhaps Catholics would rather be considered "intellectuals " rather than Bible-believing Christians. I sometimes wonder about the opinions expressed by people who describe themselves as Catholic ! ! ! !
E
EeyoresButerfly
Guest
Kaily:
What you are referring to is known as Young Earth Creationism (YEC.) Many of the more fundamental protestant faiths believe this as they believe the Bible is literal and as such is not open to interpretation.
What many do not realize is that we are reading an imperfect translation which is why we need Tradition to help us interpret. In the original languages in which the Bible was written (in this case as we are talking Genesis it would be Hebrew) there was actually no word for a 24 hour day. That concept did not exist at that time. Instead, the word used simply meant “a closed ended period of time.” This means that period of time could indeed be one 24 hour day as it has been translated in modern Bibles, or it could be thousands or even millions of years.
When I was Southern Baptist, I even had a Sunday School teacher who said that “wouldn’t it be funny if God put a bunch of bones in the ground just to see what we would do with it?” I do not agree with YEC or a literal interpretation of the Bible (part of the reason I converted). But it can be very fascinating to read about, and at one point when I was Baptist I even had a book that explained the YEC view. I wish I could remember where it was because it can certainly help clarify some of the beliefs, and it did make for interesting reading even if I didn’t agree with it.
What you are referring to is known as Young Earth Creationism (YEC.) Many of the more fundamental protestant faiths believe this as they believe the Bible is literal and as such is not open to interpretation.
What many do not realize is that we are reading an imperfect translation which is why we need Tradition to help us interpret. In the original languages in which the Bible was written (in this case as we are talking Genesis it would be Hebrew) there was actually no word for a 24 hour day. That concept did not exist at that time. Instead, the word used simply meant “a closed ended period of time.” This means that period of time could indeed be one 24 hour day as it has been translated in modern Bibles, or it could be thousands or even millions of years.
When I was Southern Baptist, I even had a Sunday School teacher who said that “wouldn’t it be funny if God put a bunch of bones in the ground just to see what we would do with it?” I do not agree with YEC or a literal interpretation of the Bible (part of the reason I converted). But it can be very fascinating to read about, and at one point when I was Baptist I even had a book that explained the YEC view. I wish I could remember where it was because it can certainly help clarify some of the beliefs, and it did make for interesting reading even if I didn’t agree with it.
A
a_priori
Guest
So, “genuine men of science” are the ones we agree with?
A
a_priori
Guest
Are we more “Christian” if we take Genesis literally? Does God like us more if we ignore an increasing body of evidence that suggests Genesis is not literal? What benefit is it to put blinders on and refuse to see what the physical world is showing? Genesis and evolutionary processes are compatible if one is objective without presuppositions to protect.
I don’t get this notion on the part of many evolutionists that God does not exist. But I also just don’t get this elitism on the part of some Christians that if you believe Genesis is literal that the quality of your faith is better. It is not a virtue to ignore what God created. It is a privilege to thank Him for his handiwork even if challenges someone’s hermeneutics.
M
matahari
Guest
M
matahari
Guest
M
matahari
Guest
The evidence is out there. The two opposing camps are reading it according to their own pre-suppositions. If I can get away with saying that the First Book of the Bible is a sort of fairy-tale with a moral , then why can’t I get away with saying that the Resurrection never happened - it was just an allegorical account of a wish-
of the disciples - that they dreamed up that Jesus rose from the dead ?
Matahari
Thanks for your reply to me.
You wrote:
Some time ago, in an Irish Catholic discussion group, I considered I was insulted and I was very hurt. Thus I have resolved to try not to hurt anyone.
I have looked at the references you gave. Thanks.
Thanks for your reply to me.
You wrote:
I do not feel you were rude to me. In fact in CA I feel that contributors are courteous and respectful in general. I try to be also.
Some time ago, in an Irish Catholic discussion group, I considered I was insulted and I was very hurt. Thus I have resolved to try not to hurt anyone.
I have looked at the references you gave. Thanks.
J
juliamajor
Guest
Certainly there are some who think they are more Catholic because they believe in Genesis literally.The funny part is that the Church doesn’t.I’ve never heard of Catholics taking Genesis literally until I came on this board- it amazed me.at almost 60 with 12 yrs Catholic Schooling( Much pre VII ) many years in the Archdiocese of NY working , teaching ,volunteering- never came across.priest, nun, monk,bishop, archbishop who ever even hinted that Genesis was to be taken literally.NY Archdiocese is not liberal at all so I began to wonder where the heck is this coming from. Can’t help but think it comes from a kind of creeping Fundamentalist/ evangelical agenda that sweep across the US during and after Jimmy carter so much that it became part of American cultural perspective.I had no idea what the term “born again” meant until the eighties- and we’ve learned what it but from a Fundamentalist perspective. Just like the bombarding of the fundamentalist version of the Second Coming( oh so colorful and dramatic) which has confused the heck out of Catholics and ingrained itself on the psyche of the american public.Trouble is that must of their ideas are not Catholic and not sound theologically. Yet I hear catholics in my teaching and on the web with pseudo Fundamentalist, quasi catholic amalgam of this. I can’t help but feel that taking Genesis literally is all a part of this cultural movement of an anti- intellectual form of religion that scares the heck out of me.With so many ultra liberals the response was to be -ultra conservative- a very american way of thinking. Americans love to go to extremes in politics and religion and so we have it here.Minimalists gives way to literalists . Either/or not both /and. Both /and is the core of Catholic Theology.
Genesis is a book of beginnings and being that it depends on ‘information’ no one could know about .It take place in a time before ‘history’. As the bible progresses and your in the time of ‘history’ many more things are knowable.many believe accounts in Samuel and Kings comes from contemporary accounts. David is portrayed , warts and all there while in chronicles he comes out like a little angel. that’s why comparing Genesis with any other books of the Bible especially NT makes little sense. Genesis is a series of etiological stories that leads up and points forward and beyond the most important book of the Pentateuch - Exodus.
The fuss made over whether Adam and Eve were literal or noah was literal tends to negate the impact and import of the deeper truer , theological meaning of Genesis.Adam and Eve are clearly symbolic… If their names were oog and moog would that really make a difference.If the Flood was small and not every animal died or was on board would the message of the story be lost?Altered, negated? Genesis has to be truly be seen as a small part of the bigger picture of salvation History.
B
buffalo
Guest
I defend the constant teaching and interpretation of the Bible by the Magisterium of the Catholic Church protected by the Holy Spirit.
Too many here look at this issue as if it is the very first time we pick up the Bible and now we need to interpret it in through a modern day lens.
I follow the CCC as to how we are to interpret Scripture, but also know we cannot do it in a vacuum.
How is being faithful to this in error?
Too many here look at this issue as if it is the very first time we pick up the Bible and now we need to interpret it in through a modern day lens.
I follow the CCC as to how we are to interpret Scripture, but also know we cannot do it in a vacuum.
How is being faithful to this in error?
C
cerad
Guest
Pretty much. It is rather absurd to say that this miracle was just pretend but that miracle actually happened.
B
buffalo
Guest
Huh? Did I post that somewhere?
T
tobinatorstark
Guest
can you find a link that says the Pope knows the earth is older 6000 years???
A
a_priori
Guest
But Matahari, that’s just the point. Acknowledging an old Earth and allowing for the evolutionary process as contributing to how we got here does not turn Genesis into a fairy tale. Genesis is full of truth and will ALWAYS be crucial in our understanding of our humanity and relationship with God. Genesis is not diminished. It isn’t either/or.
D
David_Zampino
Guest
I completely agree. MUCH of our faith as Catholics is a “both/and” proposition, and not an “either/or”. (For example faith AND works)! Other examples will come to mind. (Three AND one! or Human AND Divine).
To slip out of the tension of the “both/and” is to slip into dangerous territory – either way one slides.
- Status