How old is the Earth?

[trth_skr]

papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13provi.htm

1. In the second place, …##

[long snip]

Gary Hoge tried to use that general statement in a dialogue with Robert Sungenis. I will let Robert’s explanation answer it:

catholicintl.com/scienceissues/hogevssungenis5.htm
"Mr. Hoge: But even better, Pope Leo XIII himself tells us how we should interpret those passages of Scripture that describe the physical universe. In paragraphs 18 and 19 of Providentissimus Deus, the Pope specifically discussed the relationship between Scripture and the physical sciences, and he specifically rejected Mr. Sungenis’ implicit claim that the authors of Scripture intended to teach us about the nature of the visible universe. The Pope wrote:

“We must remember, first, that the sacred writers, or to speak more accurately, the Holy Ghost Who spoke by them, …”

R. Sungenis: Unfortunately for Mr. Hoge, Providentissimus Deus does not teach what he thinks it is teaching. The mere fact that the “angelic doctor” was an avowed geocentrist, which he based on a literal reading of Scripture; and who was a six-day creationist, which he based on a literal reading of Scripture, does not bode well for Mr. Hoge’s interpretation of Leo XIII’s words. In fact, Leo himself took Scripture very literally, stating in the encyclical Arcanum Divinae Sapientae that Adam was made from the dust of the earth and Eve was taken from his side, even in the face of Darwin’s evolutionary theory which was written some twenty years earlier and which the whole world was imbibing as the latest “scientific truth.”

In the section of Providentissimus Deus that Mr. Hoge has cited, Leo is here quoting from St. Augustine when he says:

“We must remember, first, that the sacred writers, or to speak more accurately, the Holy Ghost Who spoke by them, did not intend to teach men these things (that is to say, the essential nature of the things of the visible universe), things in no way profitable unto salvation” (De Gen. ad litt., ii., 9, 20).

The operative words here are “essential nature.” For example, Scripture does not go into a dissertation about the chemical makeup of the sun, stars or the Earth. It has no reason to get into atoms and molecules and the other constituent parts and forces of nature. It just plainly and simply tells us what God did, on the macro scale, when He created the universe. The fact is, on that macro scale, Scripture is very clear that the Earth was created first and that the sun and stars were centered around it, not vice-versa.

Now, if someone were inclined to challenge this language, then what does Pope Leo advise? Well, prior to the above quote from St. Augustine, he quotes another passage from Augustine, which says:

“If dissension should arise between them, here is the rule also laid down by St. Augustine, for the theologian: “Whatever they can really demonstrate to be true of physical nature, we must show to be capable of reconciliation with our Scriptures; and whatever they assert in their treatises which is contrary to these Scriptures of ours, that is to Catholic faith, we must either prove it as well as we can to be entirely false, or at all events we must, without the smallest hesitation, believe it to be so” (De Gen. ad litt., i., 21, 41).

So we are back to square one. According to Pope Leo, unless Mr. Hoge can prove that the earth goes around the sun, then he CANNOT interpret the language of Genesis 1 to say otherwise. Mr. Hoge has no proof. In fact, all he has are testimonies from modern science which itself, ironically, admits it has no proof.

And just to be on the safe side, you will notice that Pope Leo makes no specific reference to the issues of heliocentrism or geocentrism. His language is very general. And with him, any exegete worth his salt will admit that Moses did not write a scientific textbook about the “essential nature of the visible universe.” Rather, he painted with very big strokes, and that’s all that we would expect of him. But that gives no one the right to say that those “big strokes” don’t mean what they say they mean. It only means that we have to be very careful when we start interpreting with “little strokes” what the writers only put in “big strokes.”

CONTINUED

Mark
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

 

[trth_skr]

CONTINUED

In fact, one of the most audacious attempts at ignoring Pope Leo’s words occurs when theistic evolutionists try to read all kinds of “little strokes” into the “big strokes” of Genesis 1, claiming that they see the Big Bang in Genesis 1:1-3, and see evolutionary progression of species in the word “kinds” of Genesis 1:20-24, and many other such eisegetical attempts at interpreting Genesis 1. Geocentrists take Genesis 1 at face value, just like Augustine and Aquinas did. Augustine and Aquinas were both geocentrists, even in the face of many of the Greeks and Muslims who were touting heliocentrism as the correct view. At the least then, Mr. Hoge’s appeal to Augustine and Aquinas via Pope Leo is counterproductive to his whole argument. "

Mark
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

If you want an overview of geocentrism, see my Geocentricity 101.

Part I: Basic Definitions
veritas-catholic.blogspot.com/2005/08/geocentricity-101-part-i.html

Part II: Basic Physics:
veritas-catholic.blogspot.com/2005/08/geocentrism-101-part-ii.html

Part III: Scriptural and Church Position:
veritas-catholic.blogspot.com/2005/08/geocentrism-101-part-iii-scriptural.html

 

[trth_skr]

Wildgraywolf:

Reveal what? The age of the earth or earth’s physical location in relation to the rest of the universe? He didn’t reveal any of those things; people extrapolated them from scripture references taken out of context and/or wishful thinking. I can make a better case that God is anti-science/technology by the Tower of Babel story. Or when God told Noah to build the ark, God didn’t bother to educate Noah on the principals of bouyancy, displacement & etc. That would have been a perfect opportunity to teach practical useful science don’t ya think? So teaching science through scripture isn’t and never has been a priority for God. Now there are some scientific principals mentioned arrived at through observation, not by divine revelation. God asked Job a bunch of science questions. Job couldn’t answer them and God didn’t help him out with the answers either.

I am not talking about teaching science through Scripture. God revealed what He wanted in Scripture. This includes things one could say is related to science (creation of universe, man, naming of animals, etc.).

God then gave His Church the authority to Interpret Scripture. His Church recognizes the Fathers above any other interpreter of Scripture (including your case, or mine). The Father’s intereted the Scriptures geocentrically.

I am not trying to make the case that God is anti-science.

Mark
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

Go to my blog and read the entire three part Geocentrism 101. It may answer a lot of your issues.

 

[Sixtus]

Sorry to hijack the thread but seeings you are talking about the earth, I have a question I would like to ask contributors opinion of in the hope there may be some buffs out there who can answer my question:

Hey you scentist buffs. I read recently in the press [UK Daily Telegraph - sorry I cannot quote the exact edition now] that when the Middle East was hit by the tsunami, it was in part affected by the fact the earth momentarily stopped spinning and stood still.

It was alleged to have lasted for 0.3 milliseconds, so was of very short time duration. It was also alleged that when the earth started spinning again it did not pick up on the original spin but was slightly out so that now there is a wobble in the spin.

I actually find that unbelievable that the earth stopped spinning. Surely we are all conditioned to the spin so that we take it for granted but if it stopped, surely we would all feel the ‘lack of spin’. I just cannot believe the earth stopped spinning even if it was for such a short time span. Surely we would also have been conscious of it slowing down.

What do you think?

 

[alpha]

The book of Genesis was written in Hebrew. In that language, “day” refers to a period of time. It can be either a lengthy one or a literal day of 24 hours. Even in Genesis all six “days” are spoken of collectively as one lengthy period—‘the day in which Jehovah made earth and heaven.’ (Genesis 2:4; compare 2Peter 3:8.) The fact is, the Bible reveals that the creative “days,” or ages, encompass thousands ofyears.

A person can see this from what the Bible says about the seventh “day.” The record of each of the first six “days” ends saying, ‘and there came to be evening and morning, a first day,’ and so on. Yet, you will not find that comment after the record of the seventh “day.” And in the first century*C.E., some 4,000 years downstream in history, the Bible referred to the seventh rest “day” as still continuing. (Hebrews 4:4-6) So the seventh “day” was a period spanning thousands of years, and we can logically conclude the same about the first six “days.”

The historical account tells us that the Creator of the globe and life on it put the man he had made in a gardenlike area “to cultivate it and to take care of it.” (Genesis 2:15) At that time the Creator may still have been producing new animal kinds. The Bible says: “God was forming from the ground every wild beast of the field and every flying creature of the heavens, and he began bringing them to the man to see what he would call each one; and whatever the man would call it, each living soul, that was its name.” (Genesis 2:19) The Bible in no way suggests that the first man, Adam, was merely a mythical figure. On the contrary, he was a real person—a thinking, feeling human—who could find joy working in that Paradise home. Every day, he learned more about what his Creator had made and what that One was like—his qualities, his personality.

Then, after an unspecified period, God created the first woman, to be Adam’s wife.

By the close of the sixth “day,” the Creator had done everything necessary to fulfill his purpose. He could rightly pronounce everything he had made “very good.”