E
edwest211
Guest
I have seen them and they are consistently ignored.
- Status
B
buffalo
Guest
Unless the continents were not yet divided. In any case, it is sufficient to say they were in the Ark.
Noah had 100 years to prep. Could have been many things that God used to draw the animals to the ark. Using my imagination I can think of a few.
Noah had 100 years to prep. Could have been many things that God used to draw the animals to the ark. Using my imagination I can think of a few.
T
Techno2000
Guest
God could easily used angels to transport any animal he wanted to the ark.
Last edited:
B
buffalo
Guest
The text does not say they were created as seeds or infants.
They were given responsibilties that mature persons have, not infants.
They were given responsibilties that mature persons have, not infants.
Last edited:
B
buffalo
Guest
As he did to move Mary’s house.
B
buffalo
Guest
From a macro view everything is a miracle. Creation itself is a miracle.
B
buffalo
Guest
Remember, Jesus Himself put the imprimatur on Moses’s writings.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
As I said, when you do refer to official Magesterial documents, those documents don’t make the strong claims that you are making: for example, that Adam and Eve must not have come out of any womb, and that Eve must have been created out an actual physical rib from Adam.
And far from ignoring your references to Magesterial documents, I have taken the time to point out that they do not say what you claim whenever I see them.
Last edited:
B
buffalo
Guest
Sure I have. Look back… Eve coming from Adam has been magisterial proclaimed a number of times. It has been constant and firm teaching. Until lately…
In addition, it is scriptural.
In addition, it is scriptural.
Last edited:
B
buffalo
Guest
Catechism - pretty Magisterial
“Each for the other” - “A unity in two”
371 God created man and woman together and willed each for the other. The Word of God gives us to understand this through various features of the sacred text. "It is not good that the man should be alone. I will make him a helper fit for him."242 None of the animals can be man’s partner.243 The woman God “fashions” from the man’s rib and brings to him elicits on the man’s part a cry of wonder, an exclamation of love and communion: "This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh."244 Man discovers woman as another “I”, sharing the same humanity.
It also means Adam could not mate with any other pre-existing animals.
“Each for the other” - “A unity in two”
371 God created man and woman together and willed each for the other. The Word of God gives us to understand this through various features of the sacred text. "It is not good that the man should be alone. I will make him a helper fit for him."242 None of the animals can be man’s partner.243 The woman God “fashions” from the man’s rib and brings to him elicits on the man’s part a cry of wonder, an exclamation of love and communion: "This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh."244 Man discovers woman as another “I”, sharing the same humanity.
It also means Adam could not mate with any other pre-existing animals.
Last edited:
E
edwest211
Guest
“We record what is to all known, and cannot be doubted by any, that God, on the sixth day of creation, having made man from the slime of the earth, and having breathed into his face the breath of life, gave him a companion, whom He miraculously took from the side of Adam when he was locked in sleep.”
Arcanum - Pope Leo XIII
Arcanum - Pope Leo XIII
B
benjamin1973
Guest
He created them, then they got jobs.
Sounds a lot like my life. I was created, too. Now I have a job. I didn’t have to be instantly molded into an adult in order for any of that to be true.
Sounds a lot like my life. I was created, too. Now I have a job. I didn’t have to be instantly molded into an adult in order for any of that to be true.
Last edited:
B
benjamin1973
Guest
Apparently. The question is: why would you want to?
It seems to me that perhaps the writers of the Bible should have said “Thus saith the Lord-- this obvious allegory is not to be taken literally!” because some readers seem not to be able to differentiate between a story which was made up to clarify some point of faith or philosophy, and actual history.
Last edited:
A
anon65111186
Guest
I’m having a hard time finding any scripture or Church document for that. In Genesis 1:27 God speaks to Adam and Eve after he creates them, but it doesn’t say how much time had passed from creation to speaking.
It’s curious that the second Adam was a fetus first, and was born and was a baby, yet the first Adam was fully formed. At what age was Adam exactly then? 18? 25? 35?
Humani Generis, or Genesis, where I would expect that kind of thing to be, isn’t.
I think Adam being fully mature is an interpolation, it is wishful interpretation to fit one’s anti-evolutionary view. Correct me if I’m wrong, though.
Last edited:
A
anon65111186
Guest
In Christ He definitely opened his fleshy mouth and produced sounds that hit the fleshy ears of his listeners
But all other times, the allegory is based on that literal interpretation.
O
openmind77
Guest
Just a small correction - brahman is not a person and can not be sitting on a lotus. However, Brahma is indeed the God of creation and does emerge from a lotus. Brahma and brahman are quite different.
B
buffalo
Guest
It is extrapolation. (a few other evo claims use it ad nauseum) 
“Adam is created to work the garden and care for it (Genesis 2:15). He then names the animals (Genesis 2:19, 20). This is not something that an infant could do.”
“Adam and Eve are to “rule over” the earth (Genesis 1:28, 29). Such responsibility implies maturity.”
“Eve is presented to Adam as a wife (Genesis 2:24). They are to “be fruitful and multiply” (Genesis 1:28). For them to consummate their marriage and have children would require both of them to be in their age of physical maturity. At the very least, this means what the modern world would call “adolescents.” However, in ancient times, if you were old enough to have children, you were old enough to get married.
Adam is instructed not to eat from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil (Genesis 2:16, 17). Either God then instructed Eve or Adam passed this on to Eve because she knows it in chapter 3 (and expands it).1 When they eat from the forbidden tree, they are treated as accountable for their actions (Genesis 3:7-24). While the age of accountability varies from person to person, teens and adolescents are usually seen as accountable.”
“Adam is created to work the garden and care for it (Genesis 2:15). He then names the animals (Genesis 2:19, 20). This is not something that an infant could do.”
“Adam and Eve are to “rule over” the earth (Genesis 1:28, 29). Such responsibility implies maturity.”
“Eve is presented to Adam as a wife (Genesis 2:24). They are to “be fruitful and multiply” (Genesis 1:28). For them to consummate their marriage and have children would require both of them to be in their age of physical maturity. At the very least, this means what the modern world would call “adolescents.” However, in ancient times, if you were old enough to have children, you were old enough to get married.
Adam is instructed not to eat from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil (Genesis 2:16, 17). Either God then instructed Eve or Adam passed this on to Eve because she knows it in chapter 3 (and expands it).1 When they eat from the forbidden tree, they are treated as accountable for their actions (Genesis 3:7-24). While the age of accountability varies from person to person, teens and adolescents are usually seen as accountable.”
Last edited:
G
Glark
Guest
I think in your zeal and excitement you have neglected something - the context - which has consequently rendered these verses overwhelmingly attractive to your evolution-predilected disposition. The context, imo, is contained in verse 13: “The punishments did not come upon the sinners without prior signs …”.
The description of the changed nature of fire (v. 19) strongly suggests these changes were temporary. I don’t think the Lord would permanently change the nature of fire on account of the sins of a few evildoers.
Anyhow, regardless of their meaning, I find these passages very interesting, so thank you for bringing them to my attention.
This particular verse is a doozie:
“For every creature according to its kind was fashioned again as from the beginning, obeying thy commandments, that thy children might be kept without hurt” - Wisdom 19:6. Fascinating!
The description of the changed nature of fire (v. 19) strongly suggests these changes were temporary. I don’t think the Lord would permanently change the nature of fire on account of the sins of a few evildoers.
Anyhow, regardless of their meaning, I find these passages very interesting, so thank you for bringing them to my attention.
This particular verse is a doozie:
“For every creature according to its kind was fashioned again as from the beginning, obeying thy commandments, that thy children might be kept without hurt” - Wisdom 19:6. Fascinating!
G
Glark
Guest
But “related” you mean the theory that all creatures share a common ancestor. How is this theory useful?
The untested theory that all life evolved from microbes is nothing more than a belief, and beliefs per se are scientifically useless to everyone. Like all evolutionists (esp those who have spent endless hours studying it), you are evidently having trouble coming to grips with this fact, because many years ago you were brainwashed to believe said theory is one of the greatest “discoveries” in the history of science and is essential and eminently useful to biology. Sorry to break the bad news, but you’ve been had.
We don’t need to believe that all life evolved from microbes to understand how species become extinct.
The theory of evolution says that new species emerge as a result of a process that involves random mutations which are then subjected to natural selection. Okay, mutations and natural selection are facts that have proven to be useful, but the theory that that is how new species emerge is not useful. In other words, the facts that contribute to the theory are useful, but the theory itself, since it is not a fact, is actually useless.
“Useful” requires a use.
A theory that cannot be tested (such the aforementioned evolution) is just a story that cannot be verified as true or false, so it doesn’t qualify as learning, since nothing has been learnt.
How is learning about extinct animlals useful?
Last edited:
G
Glark
Guest
I’m not aware of anyone on this thread who has insisted exclusively on a literal six days interpretation.
I believe in a literal “six days” of creation and that Adam was created instantly from inanimate matter, but my interpretation of Scripture could be dead wrong. The evolutionists could be right … but I don’t think so
Last edited:
- Status