B
billsherman
Guest
Any luck on helping me figure out which part includes that info? As I mentioned above I can’t find the reference.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
B
billsherman
Guest
You make very specific points - the whole series does not address them. You can’t point to something more specific than “all of it?”
I’m terribly sorry, but I’m not investing six hours into something for a 20 second sound byte.
I’m terribly sorry, but I’m not investing six hours into something for a 20 second sound byte.
S
StudentMI
Guest
Ooh if we’re recommending books I recommend Your Inner Fish by Neil Shubin.
O
otjm
Guest
Except they weren’t. There is absolutely no proof that their concept of genealogy was the same as ours; it is imposing 20th/21st century thought on a tribe of 1,000 to 3,000 years before Christ. Marshall Taylor, et alia have a dog in the fight, and they can go through any mental gymnastics they want to try to prove a different point. That is not proof; it is speculation and I am not even going to bother to try to disprove it.
The Bible is a book to teach faith. Those who confuse faith with science are afraid that if science might prove otherwise, it would disprove faith.
It doesn’t; but those who have that fear will go to any and all lengths to try to bend, twist, manipulate and otherwise distort biblical passages which were not science based to either disprove science (which is a joke in itself) or to try to prop up their misunderstanding of the Bible
And as to anyone who wants to point to a short prayer at Christmas as “proof” of the Church’s understanding of history, the failure is in the research as to what the Church intended liturgically by the use of the prayer. To try to take everything else the Church teaches about the Bible and dismiss it over one prayer is beyond illogical.
There is more than ample evidence of area flooding, for example, and there is more than just the Gilgamesh story to parallel the flood story in the Bible, indicating other parts of the world experienced area flooding, some 15,000 years B.C., none of which is indicative of the “whole world” being flooded. And the geological evidences of massive area flooding (in the western states, for example, the Bonneville and Missoula floods) is more than ample - neither of which indicate “the whole world” being flood; only large areas holding waters from the last ice age.
The Bible is a book to teach faith. Those who confuse faith with science are afraid that if science might prove otherwise, it would disprove faith.
It doesn’t; but those who have that fear will go to any and all lengths to try to bend, twist, manipulate and otherwise distort biblical passages which were not science based to either disprove science (which is a joke in itself) or to try to prop up their misunderstanding of the Bible
And as to anyone who wants to point to a short prayer at Christmas as “proof” of the Church’s understanding of history, the failure is in the research as to what the Church intended liturgically by the use of the prayer. To try to take everything else the Church teaches about the Bible and dismiss it over one prayer is beyond illogical.
There is more than ample evidence of area flooding, for example, and there is more than just the Gilgamesh story to parallel the flood story in the Bible, indicating other parts of the world experienced area flooding, some 15,000 years B.C., none of which is indicative of the “whole world” being flooded. And the geological evidences of massive area flooding (in the western states, for example, the Bonneville and Missoula floods) is more than ample - neither of which indicate “the whole world” being flood; only large areas holding waters from the last ice age.
Last edited:
A
Anrakyr
Guest
Thanks for coming out. Have a good day.
O
otjm
Guest
History has shown there have been daffy clergy throughout the 2,000 years since Christ sent the Apostles forth.
I won’t further chase the trail of the false arguments you put forth. My faith dos=es not and never has rested on biblical stories - and I graduated high school before Vatican 2. Even before then we were taught that biblical comments some people take for scientific evidence were stories to explicate faith, not teach science.
You are welcome to pick and choose what you accept of Church teaching on the matter. I have no reason to presume that if you think the Bible teaches science, that thought is in any way a danger to your salvation. But I would suggest that you find others to follow than Taylor; I would suggest Bishob Barron as a wise guide to faith in Christ.
I won’t further chase the trail of the false arguments you put forth. My faith dos=es not and never has rested on biblical stories - and I graduated high school before Vatican 2. Even before then we were taught that biblical comments some people take for scientific evidence were stories to explicate faith, not teach science.
You are welcome to pick and choose what you accept of Church teaching on the matter. I have no reason to presume that if you think the Bible teaches science, that thought is in any way a danger to your salvation. But I would suggest that you find others to follow than Taylor; I would suggest Bishob Barron as a wise guide to faith in Christ.
O
otjm
Guest
And I did not say it is false either. I said it is incomplete, as the presumption is made that every individual in the generational line is mentioned, as is done in modern day genealogy. Massive difference, so please do not try to put words in my posts which are not there.
A genealogy which skips some generations but is true to the genealogical line is not false, it is incomplete by modern standards.
Incomplete is not inaccurate.
A genealogy which skips some generations but is true to the genealogical line is not false, it is incomplete by modern standards.
Incomplete is not inaccurate.
O
otjm
Guest
Not having posited it, I am not going top try to prove it. The Church does not say that evolution is real, nor does it say evolution is not real. You might actually go back and read what Pius 12th actually wrote, rather than taking bits and pieces of it.
As to the ordinary Magisterium - which I presume you will also accept the Catechism of the Catholic Church as a part, it speaks of science and of creation, and you might want to read paragraphs 282 through 308. Nowhere in there does the Church support the Old Testament as teaching science. It is there to teach faith.
As to the ordinary Magisterium - which I presume you will also accept the Catechism of the Catholic Church as a part, it speaks of science and of creation, and you might want to read paragraphs 282 through 308. Nowhere in there does the Church support the Old Testament as teaching science. It is there to teach faith.
N
NSmith
Guest
1 Chronicles 3:11-12
“The father of Joram: and Joram begot Ochozias, of whom was born Joas: And his son Amasias begot Azarias. And Joathan the son of Azarias begot Achaz…”
Matthew 1:8-9
“And Solomon begot Roboam. And Roboam begot Abia. And Abia begot Asa. And Asa begot Josaphat. And Josaphat begot Joram. And Joram begot Ozias. And Ozias begot Joatham. And Joatham begot Achaz. And Achaz begot Ezechias.”
Between Ozias and Joatham is Joas, Amasias, and Azarias which Matthew omits. This is one of the gaps I mentioned earlier in this thread, along with the gap in Ezra 7.
“The father of Joram: and Joram begot Ochozias, of whom was born Joas: And his son Amasias begot Azarias. And Joathan the son of Azarias begot Achaz…”
Matthew 1:8-9
“And Solomon begot Roboam. And Roboam begot Abia. And Abia begot Asa. And Asa begot Josaphat. And Josaphat begot Joram. And Joram begot Ozias. And Ozias begot Joatham. And Joatham begot Achaz. And Achaz begot Ezechias.”
Between Ozias and Joatham is Joas, Amasias, and Azarias which Matthew omits. This is one of the gaps I mentioned earlier in this thread, along with the gap in Ezra 7.
Last edited:
A
Anrakyr
Guest
Gravity pushes, not pulls.
A
Anrakyr
Guest
No really I’m not kidding.
N
NSmith
Guest
I am not aware of anyone disputing Luke’s genealogy except for those that think that Cainan the son of Arphaxad is a typist’s error because that Cainan is not listed in Genesis 10. However this could be seen as evidence that the Genesis genealogies skipped names and that Luke was aware of Cainan the son of Arphaxad from another source. This is also true of Reu the son of Peleg, who is not listed in Genesis 10 but is listed in Luke 3. Reu, however, appears in Genesis 11.
N
NSmith
Guest
Very cool! Thank you for pointing that out. Do you know the which writing from Augustine that is from? I might have it in order to reference.
R
Rau
Guest
Why do you presume this is accidental? We believe God had purpose in his creation.And considering that evolutionists who posit a development of life from the accidental presence of the necessary elements combined with a steady (name removed by moderator)ut of energy
R
Rau
Guest
Did he (through Genesis) also reveal a talking saint/serpent? Or was that a literary device?
Has there ever been a subsequent instance of the devil taking control of a snake in order to communicate with and tempt a person?
Has there ever been a subsequent instance of the devil taking control of a snake in order to communicate with and tempt a person?
R
Rau
Guest
Other than in CAF threads like this one, where did you encounter that? I never have.I was Catholic but the continual droning of “Bible or science” wore on me to much. You shouldn’t have to choose.
N
NSmith
Guest
Some believe, and do well. Others who support evolution do so specifically to avoid the question of intelligent design, which is why supporters of intelligent design are considered somewhat unorthodox in scientific circles and are painted with the same wide brush as people like Ken Ham.
I tried to be charitable in my earliest posts by making clear that it is certainly possible to hold a variety of opinions on this matter. The central doctrines that cannot be denied are creation ex nihilo and original sin (edit: the imago dei is another doctrine that finds its beginnings in Genesis), but if a Christian wants to believe in some form of evolution and also affirm those doctrines then he is free do do so. I only think that such a one creates for himself exegetical problems.
I tried to be charitable in my earliest posts by making clear that it is certainly possible to hold a variety of opinions on this matter. The central doctrines that cannot be denied are creation ex nihilo and original sin (edit: the imago dei is another doctrine that finds its beginnings in Genesis), but if a Christian wants to believe in some form of evolution and also affirm those doctrines then he is free do do so. I only think that such a one creates for himself exegetical problems.
Last edited:
F
Freddy
Guest
It wasn’t a hit piece. It simply gave some pertinent facts about them. Which I think were relevant to people deciding as to whether they should be trusted. Which is a moot point in any case as they no longer exist. They closed the office down years ago. At least they didn’t have to go to any trouble closing their research centre down as it never existed. I guess they thought it would save so much time and effort if they just made stuff up.@freddy Nice hitpiece from wiki. Typical… People can visit these sites and judge for themselves.
https://www.biologicinstitute.org/
And you didn’t answer the question about whether the paper you linked to had been peer reviewed. And likewise the question a few people have asked about your qualifications for this subject. It can’t be chemistry because you didn’t understand the problems I pointed out earlier.
Last edited:
R
Rau
Guest
Is that established?
Though apparently that means of temptation went out of fashion?
Though apparently that means of temptation went out of fashion?
T
TMC
Guest
I am confused. You accept that the creature speaking to Eve in Genesis 3 is not really a snake, as the text says, but rather that the text is meant allegorically to mean that Satan was speaking to Eve. So you agree that Genesis 3 is speaking allegorically in that regard, but you insist that the days of creation in Genesis 1 are literal? I also assume you would agree that the dome of the sky is not a literal dome separating the oceans below from the oceans above, right? So how do you decide what is literal and what is allegory?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.