B
- Status
B
buffalo
Guest
F
Freddy
Guest
Any comment on how Noah’s descendents populated the earth and became Aztecs, Aborigines, Egyptians, Chinese etc with their own language and history in so few generations? Especially as, for example, the Egyptians were building Pyramids before the dates assumed for the flood (2,500 BC?).The Holy Spirit was sleeping and only suddenly awoke to straighten it ll out.
And Chinese written records go back to 1250 BC. So we’re only talking about 30 generations for Noah’s descendents to get from the Middle East to the Far East, populate a land mass the same size as the US, develop a language utterly different from Noah’s and start a society that makes zero mention of this exodus.
Notwithstanding that no society anywhere makes note of this exodus whatsoever.
Any explanation?
F
Freddy
Guest
Tower of Babel.
[/quote]
The Egyptian dates? Excuse me, but they are very accurate. We’ve Egyptian (and Greek) texts listing details of kings from the Old Kingdom (around 2,500 BC) and beyond. I mean, seriously…there is no-one that disputes them.
You also need to discount Chinese civilisation, Cretan civilsation, the Indus, Mycenaean…the list goes on. But of course, anyone who has ever dated any of these people and their societies and rulers and constructions has simply got it wrong. Literally all of them.
Your dates are wrong.
[/quote]
The Egyptian dates? Excuse me, but they are very accurate. We’ve Egyptian (and Greek) texts listing details of kings from the Old Kingdom (around 2,500 BC) and beyond. I mean, seriously…there is no-one that disputes them.
You also need to discount Chinese civilisation, Cretan civilsation, the Indus, Mycenaean…the list goes on. But of course, anyone who has ever dated any of these people and their societies and rulers and constructions has simply got it wrong. Literally all of them.
O
otjm
Guest
Which has absolutely zero to do with any proof that it contains all the people in the line of genealogy.
The Jews listed people who were of importance in their faith. Because the Catholic faith comes from the Jewish faith (Christ was not a Christian - he was a Jew) and because of that connection the Jewish scripture is also our scripture - which is why the Church uses the Old Testament in the liturgy. It has absolutely nothing to do with how many people were between each individual named.
People who are “scripture only” are left to face what they think are the only two conclusions; either Darwinism or scriptureism - the attempt to say that everything in the bible is literally true.
The Church does not hold that everything in the bible is literally true; it accepts parables and stories which are given to make a theological point. The road you are taking is the road of some (actually quite a few) Protestants who hold “scripture only” and try to fit the age of the earth to fit what they perceive as “absolute truth” in scripture. The have an overwhelming fear that if science might be right about the age of the earth, that the bible is false - but the bible is not telling about the age of the earth; it is telling about faith, and man’s journey with God.
I have no desire to continue this conversation. The Church does not hold your position, and dowes not hold the position you ascribe to. You are welcome to continue on in the direction you are traveling, but I am not going to travel that road with you. Pope Pius 12th wrote concerning what we have to accept - that there were two original parents, that they sinned, and that sin - which we call original sin - is the start of a broken world.
He did not, however, say that we cannot believe in a guided evolution - which itself is a theory, and has unexplained gaps. You mnight try to read all of what he wrote on the matter.
God bless. I’m done.
The Jews listed people who were of importance in their faith. Because the Catholic faith comes from the Jewish faith (Christ was not a Christian - he was a Jew) and because of that connection the Jewish scripture is also our scripture - which is why the Church uses the Old Testament in the liturgy. It has absolutely nothing to do with how many people were between each individual named.
People who are “scripture only” are left to face what they think are the only two conclusions; either Darwinism or scriptureism - the attempt to say that everything in the bible is literally true.
The Church does not hold that everything in the bible is literally true; it accepts parables and stories which are given to make a theological point. The road you are taking is the road of some (actually quite a few) Protestants who hold “scripture only” and try to fit the age of the earth to fit what they perceive as “absolute truth” in scripture. The have an overwhelming fear that if science might be right about the age of the earth, that the bible is false - but the bible is not telling about the age of the earth; it is telling about faith, and man’s journey with God.
I have no desire to continue this conversation. The Church does not hold your position, and dowes not hold the position you ascribe to. You are welcome to continue on in the direction you are traveling, but I am not going to travel that road with you. Pope Pius 12th wrote concerning what we have to accept - that there were two original parents, that they sinned, and that sin - which we call original sin - is the start of a broken world.
He did not, however, say that we cannot believe in a guided evolution - which itself is a theory, and has unexplained gaps. You mnight try to read all of what he wrote on the matter.
God bless. I’m done.
O
otjm
Guest
Your good Doctor is of some denomination other than Catholic; Dallas Theological Seminary is most definitely not Catholic; They don’t come right out and say what their foundation is from, but the are Evangelical Protestants.
And dealing with history other than from the bible is simply ignored, or dismissed as “wrong” without ever even examining what historians have found.
He may claim he is a Hebraist, but that does not mean that he operates from an unbiased position. The farther one moves in Protestantism from the mainline churches, the more untethered issues become in regards to scripture - sola scriptura being the rule. All of which is why we now have, by some counts, some 30,000+ variations on what the bible teaches.
And dealing with history other than from the bible is simply ignored, or dismissed as “wrong” without ever even examining what historians have found.
He may claim he is a Hebraist, but that does not mean that he operates from an unbiased position. The farther one moves in Protestantism from the mainline churches, the more untethered issues become in regards to scripture - sola scriptura being the rule. All of which is why we now have, by some counts, some 30,000+ variations on what the bible teaches.
O
otjm
Guest
There are 23 Easterern Catholic Churches in union with Rome; there is the Roman or Latin Church, and within it there are if I recall correctly, 4 rites - Ambrosian, Carthusian, Dominican and one other.
And there are Churches which are in schism, which someone might count; not sure they can get up to 200, but being in schism is not the same thing as being in or starting from heresy.
An article which says there are not 30,000 has the following statement: "Third, there is no infallible interpreter of Scripture, nor is there a need for one. "
Given that bold assertion, I do not accept that there are not 30,000 when one considers that the world of Christianity is not contained within Europe and the US.
The articel also is dismissive with this: “The only way to get even remotely close to the 30,000 figure is to count every minor separation as an entirely different denomination.” Given their other statements, I hardly take them as authoritative.
Then they come up with this little bon mot: " Second, even if there genuinely were 30,000 Protestant denominations, one thing all Protestant denominations agree on is that the Roman Catholic Church is not the one true church of God."
Actually, what I read was not 30,000, but rather 36,000 and continuing to divide.
And there are Churches which are in schism, which someone might count; not sure they can get up to 200, but being in schism is not the same thing as being in or starting from heresy.
An article which says there are not 30,000 has the following statement: "Third, there is no infallible interpreter of Scripture, nor is there a need for one. "
Given that bold assertion, I do not accept that there are not 30,000 when one considers that the world of Christianity is not contained within Europe and the US.
The articel also is dismissive with this: “The only way to get even remotely close to the 30,000 figure is to count every minor separation as an entirely different denomination.” Given their other statements, I hardly take them as authoritative.
Then they come up with this little bon mot: " Second, even if there genuinely were 30,000 Protestant denominations, one thing all Protestant denominations agree on is that the Roman Catholic Church is not the one true church of God."
Actually, what I read was not 30,000, but rather 36,000 and continuing to divide.
Last edited:
T
TMC
Guest
You have to actually read Augustine, not proof text out little quotes. His position on Genesis was nuanced and varied some over time, but he did not believe Genesis should be read literally, and actually harshly criticized those that tried to.
S
stoplooklisten
Guest
As you state, Augustine’s views varied over time. He touched upon Genesis and Creation in multiple writings from different periods of his life. He left an unfinished commentary on Genesis. Augustine affirmed Creation ex nihilo or Creation from nothing by the Word of God. Augustine views on a literal six days were nuanced. St. Augustine was converted and baptized by St. Ambrose of Milan whose views on Creation can also be considered and which will also affirm the traditional understanding.
G
GKMotley
Guest
Preach it, Brother.
"The definition for denominations used in WCT, and also in our publication World Christian Encyclopedia (Oxford, 2001) is as follows:
‘Any agency consisting of a number of congregations or churches voluntarily aligning themselves with it. As a statistical unit in this survey, a ‘denomination’ always refers to one single country. Thus the Roman Catholic Church, although a single organization, is described here as consisting of 236 denominations in the world’s 238 countries.’ "
And yes, the figures given for “protestant” have been creeping up for as long as I’ve been seeing this thing (maybe 20 years - I don’t know. I’m old).
Of course, maybe it’s some other source. No one has identified one, since I’ve been watching. I remain hopeful.
"The definition for denominations used in WCT, and also in our publication World Christian Encyclopedia (Oxford, 2001) is as follows:
‘Any agency consisting of a number of congregations or churches voluntarily aligning themselves with it. As a statistical unit in this survey, a ‘denomination’ always refers to one single country. Thus the Roman Catholic Church, although a single organization, is described here as consisting of 236 denominations in the world’s 238 countries.’ "
And yes, the figures given for “protestant” have been creeping up for as long as I’ve been seeing this thing (maybe 20 years - I don’t know. I’m old).
Of course, maybe it’s some other source. No one has identified one, since I’ve been watching. I remain hopeful.
Last edited:
D
davidharper
Guest
Seems to me that theories like evolution and the big bang only explain “how”. They do not explain “why”. Evolution seems like common sense to me. Given a choice between evolution or Adam and Eve in a garden with a snake the more plausible choice seems obvious. Not because I’m an atheist. I’m not. I’m just not ten years old anymore. If the big bang happened, why? If evolution happened, why? I don’t know the answer. But neither theory makes God unnecessary. The planet earth seems so special and unlikely to me that maybe God is the only explanation for it. One example; if the ozone layer did not exist there could be no life on earth. We would all be fried by radiation. There are a hundred more examples of facts about this planet that seem so remarkable and unlikely that it’s possible that the entire universe is required for a single planet earth to “happen”.
W
whatistrue
Guest
This. 1000 times this.
G
Gorgias
Guest
I dunno. I’ve seen parents build some pretty elaborate background playsets for their children to enjoy…
B
buffalo
Guest
The god of BUC is more plausible?
P
Pattylt
Guest
That isn’t what he said. He specifically included God in it. You are the one that continually rejects Gods hand in evolution. No one else here has.
B
buffalo
Guest
If God directed evolution it is by design.
B
Buzzard3
Guest
I was there too, and I distinctly remember Noah’s wife kicking up a fuss about the dinosaurs coz they are impossible to toilet-train.
B
Buzzard3
Guest
Adam could have been created about then, but that doesn’t mean non-human life on earth was created at the same time as Adam. Scientific evidence strongly suggest non-human life appeared on earth billions of years ago.
Personally, I don’t believe Adam evolved from a pre-existing creature, but was created from “clay” between 5000-10000 years ago … according to Orthodox Jews, 5780 years ago.
Last edited:
B
Buzzard3
Guest
Unfortunately, it is not as simple as that. Reputable and highly qualified bible scholars present sound reasons for why the genealogies in the OT are not necessarily literal.
On the other hand, Darwinists try and read hundreds of thousands of years into them, which I think is nonsense.
Last edited:
- Status