Dinosaurs and the Flood

  • Thread starter Thread starter DanielJosephBoucher
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Again, Augustine wasn’t a strict literalist. Please stop saying he was.

“When we reflect upon the first establishment of creatures in the works of God from which he rested on the seventh day, we should not think either of those days as being like these ones governed by the sun, nor of that working as resembling the way God now works in time; but we should reflect rather upon the work from which times began, the work of making all things at once, simultaneously.”
 
If you are just going to resort to stamping your foot and calling me a liar I won’t be able to continue this conversation. So many references have been provided in this thread I wonder what you would possibly accept. Augustine’s view was not consistent with either the literalist fundamentalist view that some Protestants have adopted today, nor was it really the same as the allegorical view most other Christians hold. It was a non-literal view based on his understanding of the science of his day.

A 30 second Google search will confirm this, if you are truly interested. Here is an article from a Catholic source that I found in less than that time: Medievals Weren't Literalists - Clarifying Catholicism
 
Again, you are asserting that the Church may not teach as it does, because you don’t think it should. Does that seem Catholic to you?

As to Aquinas, just read what he actually wrote. Have you tried doing that? His position is pretty clear.
 
The fact that there wasn’t any debate about whether or not Genesis should be taken literally is itself evidence that NO ONE DID take it literally. By demanding specific quotes - that probably don’t exist - you are inadvertently providing evidence of literalism’s modern origins.

Of course Augustine didn’t have anything to say about scriptural literalism - no one in his day thought that way.

It is similar to a person demanding quotes from Aquinas that condemn quantum mechianics. No such idea existed in his day.
 
Last edited:
Please do. And while you’re at it, what is your training, education, and experience as a theologian?
 
At what point have you quoted the Church supporting your theories of literalism, rejection of general relativity, evolution, and whatever else you’ve thrown in the mix (I don’t recall your position on dinosaurs on the Ark, but I imagine you have one)?

How can asking to know someone’s level of expertise ever “discredit” them? It doesn’t work that way.

I’m suspicious of your ability to understand theology, in part, because of your demonstrated lack of understanding of how gravity bends space-time rather than pulls a object. I think it is prudent on my part.
 
You have been provided many authoritative Church documents to the contrary, including the Catechism. Its almost like you do not actually care what the Church teaches and are only here to present a fundamentalist viewpoint that is contrary to the Church.
 
nachash: a serpent

[Genesis 3:1]
[HEB:]וְהַנָּחָשׁ֙ הָיָ֣ה עָר֔וּם
[NAS:] Now the serpent was more crafty
 
Rau said:
Which met up with a talking snake? I’ve not read about that one
Click to expand...
Really, what is the issue with a talking snake or a talking serpent? It cannot happen? Exorcists will tell you demons can speak through those they possess.
 
The Catechism teaches we first go with the literal (what the sacred inspired author intended to convey) they the layers of allegory are on top.
 
The senses of Scripture

115 According to an ancient tradition, one can distinguish between two senses of Scripture: the literal and the spiritual, the latter being subdivided into the allegorical, moral and anagogical senses. The profound concordance of the four senses guarantees all its richness to the living reading of Scripture in the Church.

[116] The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: "All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal."83

[117] The spiritual sense . Thanks to the unity of God’s plan, not only the text of Scripture but also the realities and events about which it speaks can be signs.
  1. The allegorical sense . We can acquire a more profound understanding of events by recognizing their significance in Christ; thus the crossing of the Red Sea is a sign or type of Christ’s victory and also of Christian Baptism.84
  2. The moral sense . The events reported in Scripture ought to lead us to act justly. As St. Paul says, they were written “for our instruction”.85
  3. The anagogical sense (Greek: anagoge , “leading”). We can view realities and events in terms of their eternal significance, leading us toward our true homeland: thus the Church on earth is a sign of the heavenly Jerusalem.86
 
Last edited:
That would make the time of Noah at millions of years ago according to fossil evidence
 
In the twenty-first century there is no point in arguing with someone who actually believes that the Noah’s ark story is literal fact. Same as trying to convince a scientologist that everything he’s been taught is nonsense. Or a Jehovah’s Witness that there isn’t going to be a “rapture” in which 144,000 of us will be taken up to heaven. Anyone trying to do this is wasting his time.
 
The part that JHes miss is the uncountable mass of people that are there also in the bible.

After this I looked, and there before me was a great multitude that no one could count, from every nation, tribe, people and language, standing before the throne and before the Lamb. They were wearing white robes and were holding palm branches in their hands.
 
The Covenant with Noah

[56] After the unity of the human race was shattered by sin God at once sought to save humanity part by part. The covenant with Noah after the flood gives expression to the principle of the divine economy toward the “nations”, in other words, towards men grouped “in their lands, each with [its] own language, by their families, in their nations”.9

57 This state of division into many nations is at once cosmic, social and religious. It is intended to limit the pride of fallen humanity10 united only in its perverse ambition to forge its own unity as at Babel.11 But, because of sin, both polytheism and the idolatry of the nation and of its rulers constantly threaten this provisional economy with the perversion of paganism.12

[58] The covenant with Noah remains in force during the times of the Gentiles, until the universal proclamation of the Gospel.13 The Bible venerates several great figures among the Gentiles: Abel the just, the king-priest Melchisedek - a figure of Christ - and the upright “Noah, Daniel, and Job”.14 Scripture thus expresses the heights of sanctity that can be reached by those who live according to the covenant of Noah, waiting for Christ to “gather into one the children of God who are scattered abroad”.15
 
Last edited:
That a saint believes something does not make it true. This is especially so when the something is a matter of history or science.
 
Except I understand you hold to a young earth which puts an end to evolution.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top