How do we explain other nations?

[flick427]

The Bible starts out talking about creation and the area where Adam was near the Tigris River etc, etc…it then continues to show salvation history in relation to this same “area” of the world and God’s chosen people.
Many Aethist may argue that if someone goes by the whole theory of the “Earth is only as old as the Bible geneology theory” where some fundamentalist say that the earth is only about 6,000 years old that it does not account for other nations of people.
In other words, the Bible doesn’t say “meanwhile, in the land of South America, the Aztec empire…”. They may argue that 6,000 years or whatever is not enough time for people from the chosen race in the area of the Tigris to travel all the way around the world starting after the creation of Adam (the first man), and then populate other regions of the world only for many to “discover” these lands thousands of years later.
Does anyone know a good perspective I could take to argue…whoops, I mean “discuss” this???

 

[Ghosty]

You can take the perspective that the story of Adam and Eve didn’t take place 6000 years ago, which is perfectly acceptable in Catholicism. There is no way that a literal reading of the time scale in Genesis can account for the genetic deviation and the archeological evidence of different human populations that predate the 6000 year mark.

 

[flick427]

Ghosty:

You can take the perspective that the story of Adam and Eve didn’t take place 6000 years ago, which is perfectly acceptable in Catholicism. There is no way that a literal reading of the time scale in Genesis can account for the genetic deviation and the archeological evidence of different human populations that predate the 6000 year mark.

I understand what you say about not choosing that perspective, but the problem I ran into is a video I watched with a fundamentalist (baptist). He went with the theory of the earth only being several thousand years old according to the bible…honestly, I don’t see any logical way that I could convince an atheist that the world was only 6,000 years old or whatever.
Perhaps a better question would be how can I make a good argument against the fundamentalist who is trying to convince the student that the earth is only so many thousand years old because they “traced back the geneology”?
How does the church view the “timeline” of the Old testament and the literal interpretations of how long the earth has been around? I was taught that the bible was not a historical book, but a book of faith that has historically true aspects to it…the fundamentalist don’t see it this way though…

 

[Tom]

flick427:

Many Aethist may argue that if someone goes by the whole theory of the “Earth is only as old as the Bible geneology theory” where some fundamentalist say that the earth is only about 6,000 years old that it does not account for other nations of people.

The problem is in the Fundamentalist “theory’ of the age of the earth. There is no timeline from creation to present day. It’s made up. They theorize it’s about 6,000 years. It’s false. Your basic problem is listening to Aethists arguing with Fundamentalists… LOL

 

[jmm08]

Tom:

The problem is in the Fundamentalist “theory’ of the age of the earth. There is no timeline from creation to present day. It’s made up. They theorize it’s about 6,000 years. It’s false. Your basic problem is listening to Aethists arguing with Fundamentalists… LOL

I’m Baptist and signed up for RCIA / RCIC.

There are a lot of fundamentalists who do not think the earth is only 6,000 years old.

The NAB is such a better translation than the Protestant ones, I love it. It even brings out the truth of Genesis 1:2 so much more (saying wasteland).

Caution: I am speaking the following as a Baptist (not learning it as a Catholic). But I’d like to know what Catholics think.

Genesis 1:1-2 “In the beginning, when God created the heavens and the earth, the earth was a formless wasteland, and darkness covered the abyss, while a mighty wind swept over the waters.”

Between Gen 1:1 and Gen 1:2 there was a rather lengthy gap, which also likely included the fall of Satan and perhaps many other events. God created dinosaurs and why he created them and what he did with them has nothing to do with us. The fall of Satan and other demons explains why the earth was a wasteland. God didn’t make a wasteland. The devil ruined the face of the earth making it a wasteland. Darkness covered the abyss – was that God’s doing?

And when the Lord made the Earth in seven days. Were they earth’s days? With the Lord, a day is like a thousand years. And in that usage, the number thousand may just mean a very large number (not necessarily exactly a thousand). Perhaps it is equally true that with the Lord, a day is like a million years or like a billion years. In the Bible, sometimes the word day means year (70 weeks of days in the book of Daniel). So the Bible does not tell us exactly how old the earth is. And I don’t think we have a need to know.

I’d like to hear an atheist convince me that logic exists (if God does not exist). Correct logic is supposed to be a reflection of perfect thought. If God doesn’t exist, there are no perfect thoughts. Flawed logic does not exist because there is no flawless logic. How can they know anything if they also know God does not exist? If God does not exist, then there is no God who cares about us. We are moving but lifeless creatures on a dust speck we call Earth. How can we say life or death makes any difference there is no God? Even life is not life without Him.

 

[flick427]

jmm08:

I’m Baptist and signed up for RCIA / RCIC.

There are a lot of fundamentalists who do not think the earth is only 6,000 years old.

The NAB is such a better translation than the Protestant ones, I love it. It even brings out the truth of Genesis 1:2 so much more (saying wasteland).

Caution: I am speaking the following as a Baptist (not learning it as a Catholic). But I’d like to know what Catholics think.

Genesis 1:1-2 “In the beginning, when God created the heavens and the earth, the earth was a formless wasteland, and darkness covered the abyss, while a mighty wind swept over the waters.”

Between Gen 1:1 and Gen 1:2 there was a rather lengthy gap, which also likely included the fall of Satan and perhaps many other events. God created dinosaurs and why he created them and what he did with them has nothing to do with us. The fall of Satan and other demons explains why the earth was a wasteland. God didn’t make a wasteland. The devil ruined the face of the earth making it a wasteland. Darkness covered the abyss – was that God’s doing?

And when the Lord made the Earth in seven days. Were they earth’s days? With the Lord, a day is like a thousand years. And in that usage, the number thousand may just mean a very large number (not necessarily exactly a thousand). Perhaps it is equally true that with the Lord, a day is like a million years or like a billion years. In the Bible, sometimes the word day means year (70 weeks of days in the book of Daniel). So the Bible does not tell us exactly how old the earth is. And I don’t think we have a need to know.

I’d like to hear an atheist convince me that logic exists (if God does not exist). Correct logic is supposed to be a reflection of perfect thought. If God doesn’t exist, there are no perfect thoughts. Flawed logic does not exist because there is no flawless logic. How can they know anything if they also know God does not exist? If God does not exist, then there is no God who cares about us. We are moving but lifeless creatures on a dust speck we call Earth. How can we say life or death makes any difference there is no God? Even life is not life without Him.

I am not actually sure of the churches teaching or Theology on this type of thing, but I’d like to find out.
In a strange sort of way, what you bring up here would explain much if we continued and really look at the next several verses about God splitting the waters etc…Panacea (the large piece of single land)…could even be explained here. While only God knows how it really started, it is interesting to contemplate this stuff…wouldn’t that be strange to see how the world possibly was before God made us or just to watch how He created it all.
I don’t know or remember exactly where I got this concept, but I was told that the Bible is not meant to be a historical book as I explained before, however it does have history in it…this is because of figurative language and most of it being “over our heads” really…anyway, I was told it was a book of faith, which makes sense, but somewhere I learned that when some of the people are talked about in the Old Testament, they are not meant to be explained just in the physical sense, but also spiritually, and since we humans can’t grasp some things as our knowledge is limited, “abstract” things are explained in ways we can relate to…sort of like the Book of Revelation is at times.
Anyone else know about this?

 

[jeffreedy789]

i’ve got another perspective for ya. i’m one of the few young earth roman catholics you’ll meet.

let me disclaim - it’s not a necessary, intrinsic part of my theology that the earth is app 6,000 years old. if Jesus lets us know that it’s older than that, no problem.

but i believe in a literal genesis story, which i UNDERSTAND (caveat here, i’m not sure about this bit) that the catholic church also held to until about 50 years ago, or so. please correct me if i’m wrong on this. i’ve read some bits on the internet that seem to indicate vatican approval of the 6,000 year old earth before this century.

ANYWAY.

to actually answer your question, it (along with most of the ‘how did it happen this way?’ questions) boils down to the flood. according to young earth folks, the earth was split into its various continents at the flood. before that, it was panacea. as noah and his fam started repopulating, they moved into all the new areas, including south america, etc.

the civilizations in central and south america do not date before the time that they could have reasonably gotten there from the ark’s landing spot.

does that make sense? like i said, i don’t see this as necessary or terribly important. but it’s my theory, and i’m stickin to it. at least for now.

 

[Ghosty]

The problem is that genetic material doesn’t mutate at a fast enough rate to explain the difference between different populations if the “Young Earth” theory is correct.

As for the Church teaching that the Earth is “young”, it’s never been dogma or doctrine either way. I know it was a Catholic priest that formulated the Big Bang Theory in 1927, so the “old Earth” thought has been allowed for longer than 50 years.

 

[jeffreedy789]

ah - so your position denies a global flood? otherwise, we all go back to noah and his fam, whether the earth is 6000 or 6000000 years old.

ya, i know the church never taught it as dogma. and i’m glad. i know it’d be hard for alot of scientists today to hold a catholic faith in spite of the ‘evidence’ they see.

no, i didn’t know the bit about 1927. thanks for letting me know.

don’t know how to make my type smaller. it got huge for some reason. sorry. (and ya, i tried the ‘font’ thing at the top. the smallest size it gives me is ‘1’, which is what you’re seeing. any way to fix that?

 

[Ghosty]

No, I don’t believe in a global flood, but I do believe in the flood story in Genesis as described, so long as it’s understood that the language used was figurative. I believe the flood was regional, and that Noah gathered up a number of local animal types, and his family clamored onto a boat. I believe this is completely in line with the reading of the story.

 

[Steve_M]

As for the earth being 6000 years old. The Chinese date their society back to 5000BC. The Navajo Indians, I thnk that’s the tribe, date their society back to about 9,000 BC, and the Aboriginies in Australia date their society bac to about 30,000 BC. When missionaries first went to China and tried to teach that the earth was 6,000 old, they were laughed at. If you want to know how to defeat the fundamentalist argument, a good book is called The Genesis Question by Hugh Ross. He expalins why the young earth theory has no basis in real science. He also explains a litteral interpertation, remember that the Hebrew word “yom” day doesn’t necessarily mean 24 hours, that is well grounded in science. He is a PHD in both physics and astronomy, I think that’s the two. It’s a very easy read, and it has a lot of amunition to defend yourself with.

 

[Socrates]

but i believe in a literal genesis story, which i UNDERSTAND (caveat here, i’m not sure about this bit) that the catholic church also held to until about 50 years ago, or so. please correct me if i’m wrong on this. i’ve read some bits on the internet that seem to indicate vatican approval of the 6,000 year old earth before this century.

I think that the young earth theory is certainly allowable according to Catholic teaching, but it has never been dogma. There are instances of the early Fathers questioning whether Genesis could really be interpreted literally. I only have one reference on hand (from a recent discussion on another forum) but I’m pretty sure there are more.

The two meanings of the Bible
by Origen, c. 185-254

“The reason why the divine power has give us the Scriptures is not solely to present facts according t the literal interpretation of the narrative. If one looks to the letter of the text, some of the facts have not actually happened and would be irrational and illogical.
Granted , the facts that have happened in the literal sense are much more numerous than the facts that have been added and have only a spiritual meaning.
All the same, in the face of certain pages the reader feels embarrassed. Without accurate research it is not possible to discover if a fact that seems historical actually happened according to the literal sense of the words or if it did not happen at all.
By keeping the commandment of the Lord to “search the Scriptures” (John 5:39), one ought to examine with care and attention where the literal meaning is historical and where it is not.
In Scripture not everything is objectively historical in the literal sense. Sometimes it is obvious that the result of taking it literally is impossible. But the divine Scripture, taken as a whole, has a spiritual meaning.”
(Translation by Thomas Spidlik, Drinking from the Hidden Fountain: A Patristic Breviary, Cistercian Publications, Kalamazoo, MI - Spencer, MASS, 1994)

Of course this doesn’t really say anything about what the magisterium said on the matter, but questioning whether Genesis can be interpreted literally is certainly nothing new…hardly as recent as the last 50 years.

 

[buffalo]

Ghosty:

No, I don’t believe in a global flood, but I do believe in the flood story in Genesis as described, so long as it’s understood that the language used was figurative. I believe the flood was regional, and that Noah gathered up a number of local animal types, and his family clamored onto a boat. I believe this is completely in line with the reading of the story.

If they find the ark at 14,000 feet, how will science explain how it got that high up? Supposedly there is an object on Mt Ararat that has been seen and the reports say it has three decks. Time will tell.

Noahs Ark Search

National Geographic Article

 

[Ghosty]

If they find the ark at 14,000 feet, how will science explain how it got that high up? Supposedly there is an object on Mt Ararat that has been seen and the reports say it has three decks. Time will tell.

When the ark is found, we’ll talk. Until then you’re arguing with fantasies. Without the ark present, the only reasonable conclusion that can be drawn with the current evidence, including Scriptural testimony as to the dimensions of the ark, is that it was not a global flood and that all animal species were not taken aboard. Even the supposed “find” of the ark, which is merely a couple of grainy images that are less convincing than most Bigfoot photos, shows it to be much too small to have done what the Scriptures say it did, if they are read literally.

We can argue “ifs” all day, but in the end it comes down to facts. I’m not married to my vision of a local flood, I’m merely accepting of the facts of the matter as we know them now. Furthermore, a literal reading of the whole of Genesis is neither demanded, nor even recommended, by the Church, so I’m quite comfortable in sitting on the side of the Magesterium on this one.

I’d also like to point out that my ancestors literally lived at the foot of Ararat for millenia, and it’s considered a sacred place for my people. It’s not like it would be a minor find for me or my family.