B
buffalo
Guest
Pope Benedict XVI is one who acknowledged some value to it but was not a big fan.
- Status
P
phil19034
Guest
Yeah, I don’t know what you are trying to argue?phil19034:
99% is sufficient for me to accept that dinosaurs existed long before man and that man never interacted with them as living creatures. The rest is just fanciful speculation.
YMMV
I don’t think think dinos co-existed with man. I’m simply saying that there ARE several living & extinct reptiles that look like dinos (like living & extinct species of alligator, crocodile, caiman, and gharial).
I’m also saying that it is theoretically possible (even if highly unlikely) that some recently extinct reptiles may have looked like a stegosaurus or triceratops.
However, I am NOT implying that stegosaurus and triceratops existed with man, they certainly did not. Furthermore, I’m not saying that animals that looked like stegosaurus and triceratops existed with man. There is no proof either way.
I’m only implying that SOME ancient humans knew of stegosaurus, triceratops, and other dinosaurs (OR that 2500 years ago in Cambodia, Peru, Mesopotamian & the American West, animals that LOOKED like dinosaurs MIGHT have existed)
NOTHING MORE, NOTHING less.
ALSO NONE OF THIS LENDS CREDIBILITY TO THE YOUNG EARTH MOVEMENT. The earth might be older or younger than science currently is estimating, but it is NOT 5000 years old.
History Daily
historydaily.org
Last edited:
B
billsherman
Guest
Value to what? Pope Benedict XVI does NOT believe Genesis should be taken literally. Nor does he believe it was written in the way you suggest.
B
buffalo
Guest
JEPD. He discusses it in his Book “Jesus of Nazareth”.
B
billsherman
Guest
Yes, of course. Pope Benedict XVI (and all Popes back to Pius XII) saw the value in textual criticism. They often don’t think it has much theological use, but that isn’t surprising because it isn’t a theological methodology. It is a historical methodology.
Should I assume that you, in fact, can’t find a Jewish source for your idea about how Genesis was supposedly written? You have ignored that question.
P
phil19034
Guest
One year surely means “one year.” However, one year doesn’t always mean 365 days.
We don’t know how time was measured by all the ancestors of of the Jewish people 10,000 years ago.
What we DO know is that ancient Jewish people has a literary style of exaggerating numbers when they wrote. They would do this in the same way we used the made up number of a “zillion.” Also, the same way kids will exaggerate numbers by saying things like “you’re like a hundred years old” to their parents.
The ancient Jews didn’t have a made up number like “a zillion” like we have today. So they often used greatly exaggerated numbers to delineate large amounts of time.
They also were not 100% concerned about listing every single generation when listing a genealogy. This is why it’s proper to called Jesus the “Son of David” even though David was obviously not David’s son. It’s also why Joseph was properly considered a “son of David” or “of David” too, even though David was an ancient ancestor and not his father.
Just because someone is listed as the “son of X” or “daughter of X” could mean that they were the grandchild, great grandchild, great-great grandchild, etc. It doesn’t automatically mean that they were solely the child of X.
It would have been very proper & common for a great-great grandfather living in the ancient world to refer to his children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren, & great-great grandchildren all as simply his “children.”
So while some of genealogy is surely mentioned parent/child relationships, it’s not 100% certain that it always is (esp with the older generations).
Think of it like this too… if a father dishonorably died or was dishonorably removed from the family, it was not uncommon for the grandparent or an uncle or older brother to adopt the child. The biological father would have been removed from the family history.
D
davidharper
Guest
you’re pretty smart.
B
buffalo
Guest
I am Catholic. However, I get the point of your question. The Toledoth link was from Hope of Israel site. Don’t know much about them but I assume they are Jewish.
Are we depending on Jewish sources to validate the claim?
B
buffalo
Guest
The Jewish calendar is not congruent with ours as far as days and years go?
B
billsherman
Guest
No, but it would be pretty absurd to think that there could be evidence of such a thing that Jews have ignored for 4,000 years. That was my point.
There is no historical evidence for your claim.
B
billsherman
Guest
No, not even a little bit.
B
buffalo
Guest
Is your claim Jewish scholars do not understand colophons? or toledots?
B
billsherman
Guest
Hope of Israel Ministries is certainly not a reliable source. Aside from the fact that that website is absurdly anti-Semitic, anti-Catholic, and anti-Muslim (it lists these three as “enemies” of the Kingdom), it also presents no evidence for its claims.
Last edited:
R
Rau
Guest
The Catholic Church does not advocate that genesis Is to be read in a literal sense - and I am using literal in the ordinary language sense. Eg. The story of the serpent talking to Eve need not be read as describing an actual event where a snake spoke words to Eve.
R
Rau
Guest
The church is not in the business of approving science, so what’s your point?
No, it is not.
No one has touted the BBT as a Catholic stance. Who in the Catholic Church has been teaching science to you?
I doubt that is the case.
P
phil19034
Guest
The Jewish calendar, yes. But the Jewish calendar was created around 3761 BC.phil19034:
The Jewish calendar is not congruent with ours as far as days and years go?
We don’t know what was used by the ancestors of the Jewish people in 8000 BC.
P
phil19034
Guest
As FYI for any reader:
Catholicism surely did not create Islam. However, ancient Catholics did consider Islam to be a heresy of Christianity for a very long time.
Catholicism surely did not create Islam. However, ancient Catholics did consider Islam to be a heresy of Christianity for a very long time.
Last edited:
P
Pattylt
Guest
Not really. I’ve just read and studied it a bit!
T
TMC
Guest
Possible or not possible, I don’t know a single person who interprets Genesis 3:1-5 literally.
- Status