Job 40:15-24 Biblical proof of dinosaurs and man

[ShynSup]

So let’s sum up:

Shynsup

1. uses KJV
2. is a young earth creationist
3. believed the Bible is supreme authority
4. the bible is literal
5. the bible is science
6. Saints are infallible
7. Augustine is infallible
8. Satan had infiltrated the Vatican
9. the church does not condemn homosexual sin
10. Quotes from CARM (anti catholic fundie Calvinist site) on other threads.

If he is not a troll, he is severely misguided.

But if it walks like a troll and sounds like a troll…

That ad hominem, oh well, guess its your last resource.

Again inventing stuff and lying, incredible.

 

[ShynSup]

Not going to waste time searching, you just tell me the #-ID
of the response, like the one I’m answering now is “#124.”
And again, you’re the one giving the ad hominem attacks.

Science does not conclude whether the first soul-endowed human beings suf-
fered sickness or death before the Fall, that is outside the scope of science.
And what’s this about equality and inferiority? Evolution simply does not say
anything like that. Such is what Creationists are putting in Science’s mouth.

Its not, science claims to have fossil records previous than humans.
Let me clarify: to become a fossil, you must die.

It doesnt? Actually darwinism says so. Guess what, darwin came up with evolution. Also, the possibility is latent, as evolution keeps going, ones may evolve faster, and thus consider the rest inferior. Such as white europenas did with black africans, moved by darwins ideas.

I believe in survival of the fittest, not as a contest so to speak, but as a natural principle.
A species either does well and reproduces or something happens and they go extinct.
God, however, led nature to produce Man, a species that is capable of caring for the
sick, deformed, elderly, etc, we were a people, attending to each others ailments,
and so much more . . . Yes, evidence and reason is very much in reflection to
how God made us.

Survival of the fittest, not care for the weak, the inferior. Angels, which are superior are put to our service, Jesus, being God is put to our service and cleans our feet. It goes totally against Gods teachings, period.

Well with Jesus and the resurrection, we have to rely on faith there, ESPECIALLY
seeing how there is no evidence for or even AGAINST the resurrection. Bad argu–
ment there. In the case of the Geology, Biology, etc, we can find evidence to see
whether the Genesis is 100% literal or not. Challenge Again: You show me some-
thing that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that birds flew before cattle walked
and I might just give a a thumbs up.

No evidence against? What about the whole science community not supporting deads resurrecting?

Still, Jesus resurrection was just an example of countless… If you can decide what to take literally or not, anybody can. We are free to dismiss other parts of Scripture and thus become the judge of what is or is not true in spite of what Jesus and the Bible authors say.
Challenge acepted:

" 19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.

23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.

24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so."

First: Your Catholic and are using the KJV? Yes I see the “N”, but that is
still a BAD translation, though I digress. Anyway, I thought the Bible said
that God made light in the beginning. Also, you’ll find that in Genesis that
there are two different Stories of Creation. In one, we find God created the
Animals THEN humans, male & female, but in the second, God made all
plants, but there was no man to tend to them. Then God made Adam. He
then caused that all animal life come forth and have Adam name them all.
ONLY AFTER THAT is the Female Human made. So which story should
we be taking literally? Genesis Chapter One or Two? Neither stories are
literal accounts, understand.

They are very bad translations out there, many focused on discrediting the bible, KJV is a very accurate one. As you say it, it would seem as genesis 1 and 2 contradict each other, but in fact they are not 2 different stories, chapter 2 is more detailed on mans and womans creations.
Part of the confusion results from our English translations, which use the term “earth” when the Hebrew would better be translated “land.”

Scientifically, we don’t know, but that doesn’t make Creationists correct just because
they have an opinion. Maybe God’s rest began on the 144th hour of the existence of
the universe and continued working after the 168th hour of Creation, who knows for
sure on a scientific level? I simply accept the evidence that is shown and believe
that God has a definite answer to these mysteries.

So yea, you got no reason to keep Sabbah Holy.

Evolution doesn’t necessarily mean “Life is getting better,” like you suggest its claiming.
At some point, we humans were perfect. We don’t know when. We don’t know how long,
though we can speculate that it wasn’t for so long. The first soul-endowed humans who
were perfect from the beginning then sinned, now we get sick and suffer other disasters
that we might not have had to had we not sinned.

Not life, but the world evolves into a better one, survival of the fittest. It would seem that evil people often survive more in this world, maybe thats were evolution is taking us, into a selfish man, only caring about himself and his survival.

Or no, evolution is theoretically going towards perfection, again contradicting the bible.

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

That ad hominem, oh well, guess its your last resource.

Again inventing stuff and lying, incredible.

No No Again, saying Charles Darwin a racist therefore evolution is wrong (the premise
to which is entirely frictional) is an ad hominem. You’re the one who’s been doing that,
saying the Egyptians were pagans, idolators, even wizards, therefore the idea that an-
cient people found the hippopotamus a terrifying creature is erroneous, that being one
example. You also asked about my age, like that has anything to do with facts. There
were even times, at least once, I could be wrong, that you associated evolution with a-
theism, again I could be wrong.

What Jon S simply did was gather some key traits of you and draw rational conclusions.
He didn’t attack you’re personal character and attack your arguments based on that, he
brought forward to the table everything you’ve used as an argument and made very rath-
er sound conclusions.

Learn more about Logical Fallacies before accusing us of making any of them.

Oh also, you said “Again inventing stuff and lying, incredible,” as though that were
true, just look at your posts throughout the tread, he’s not making stuff up or lying.

 

[ShynSup]

uh . . . I know, because the Bible and science are not dealing with the same issues.
But let’s assume a moment that they are: We do know that the stars existed before
the Earth. We know that land animals existed before birds. We know that the Earth
goes around the Sun, not the Sun RISING in the EAST and SETTING in the WEST.
We know these things because of SCI-ence.

God does not eternally have a shape either. You’re the one now, I think, who’s going
heretical on us. As for the second resurrection, assuming you mean after Jesus re-
turns, I don’t see how that is relevant to either the discussion or the “shape of God”.

Totally right, creation of life, universe, etc has nothing to do with science or the bible

Our bodies resurrection of course. Have you seen God for all eternity? Anyways, Angels have taken our shape when they appeared to us, so does Jesus, if we will keep this for, once we die, who knows, maybe Mother Mary is still human shaped up there and so we will be too, and so will Jesus who will be with us for all eternity.

 

[ShynSup]

No No Again, saying Charles Darwin a racist therefore evolution is wrong (the premise
to which is entirely frictional) is an ad hominem. You’re the one who’s been doing that,
saying the Egyptians were pagans, idolators, even wizards, therefore the idea that an-
cient people found the hippopotamus a terrifying creature is erroneous, that being one
example. You also asked about my age, like that has anything to do with facts. There
were even times, at least once, I could be wrong, that you associated evolution with a-
theism, again I could be wrong.

What Jon S simply did was gather some key traits of you and draw rational conclusions.
He didn’t attack you’re personal character and attack your arguments based on that, he
brought forward to the table everything you’ve used as an argument and made very rath-
er sound conclusions.

Learn more about Logical Fallacies before accusing us of making any of them.

Oh also, you said “Again inventing stuff and lying, incredible,” as though that were
true, just look at your posts throughout the tread, he’s not making stuff up or lying.

Actually I started replying with the same agression you guys did at the beginning. I accused you of using fallacies, you did not care and continued to use them, so I did to.

And yes, he IS lying and making erroneous conclusions.

Also just stop messing up with replys, let him reply for his own.

 

[Aloysium]

Oooh, the misqoute, good one.

Followed by “Of course, these needs to be accompanied with the Holy Tradition. which derivates from the word of God, that is why I am a Catholic”

Smart to mess things up.

Same as going tomchurch, confession, The Holy Eucharist, and every other doctrine derivates from the bible, so does the statement of Agustine.

Maybe you should look up how Agustine got to such number using the bible.

So, from your discussion of everything but my question as to whether there is anything in the Bible that states the earth and man cannot be older than 6,000 years, that the answer is no.
You are, of course, free to believe whatever you want, but do not suggest that the Bible says this is a historical reality.

 

[ShynSup]

So, from your discussion of everything but my question as to whether there is anything in the Bible that states the earth and man cannot be older than 6,000 years, that the answer is no.
You are, of course, free to believe whatever you want, but do not suggest that the Bible says this is a historical reality.

Same as the sacraments and the HolyTradition, this 6000 number is a derivation from the bible and its study. This fact does not mean less credibility or support, the same as for the sacraments, etc.

 

[aragonjohn1]

Would I be correct in my interpretation of this passage to be proof of man and dinosaurs (Sauropod) living at the same time in history? Did my science teacher get it wrong?

well, there are many ways this verse can be understood in God’s love. and since one can not alwways interpret in the sense of the time. one has to do with what is given. here is a chart mae on one of the interpetations

rating of 0 to 2 for the amount of resemblance the passage makes with the animal in question (0 being no resemblance 1 being some resemblance and 2 being full resemblance). Then I added up the total numbers of each animal. The animal with the highest total is consequently the most similar creature to the one being described. Look how it turned out:
Animal (right)
Characteristic (below) Sauropod Stegosaurus Elephant Hippopotamus Rhinoceros Crocodile
15"Eateth grass (greenness, herbage, etc.)* as an ox" 2 2 2 2 2 1
16"Strength in his loins" 2 2 1 1 1 0
16"Force is in the navel (muscles) of his belly" 2 2 0 0 0 0
17"Moveth his tail like a cedar (implying prominent tail)" 2 2 0 0 0 1
17"The sinews of his stones (or thighs) are wrapped together" 2 2 0 0 0 0
18"Bones strong as pieces of brass; bones like bars of iron" 2 2 2 2 2 0
Total

• source chart 1
• add.

The Bible is a collection of divinely inspired texts, revealing our original relationship with God, our fall from grace, and our way of return to God (through Christ). Anything that doesn’t pertain to these fundamentals falls outside the purpose for which the Bible was written.

But if there is no mention of dinosaurs in the Bible, neither is there any conflict between Bible and the fossil record. “And God said, ‘Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth according to their kinds’” (Gen 1:24). This statement would cover every kind of land animal, including dinosaurs. Then finally, on the same “day” of creation, viz., the sixth, but many millions of years later, God created man, unique among all creatures of earth, as being made in God’s image (Gen 1:26).

• HUMANI GENERIS
• source 3

God bless

 

[Aloysium]

Same as the sacraments and the HolyTradition, this 6000 number is a derivation from the bible and its study. This fact does not mean less credibility or support, the same as for the sacraments, etc.

By sacraments you mean baptism, the Eucharist, marriage, confession?
These are actually mentioned in the Bible.
Where do you see 6000 year old creation mentioned anywhere.
Seriously, believe what you want but you aren’t convincing anyone.

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

Its not, science claims to have fossil records previous than humans.
Let me clarify: to become a fossil, you must die.

Right, and the first soul-endowed humans DID in fact die. What point are you making?

It doesnt? Actually darwinism says so. Guess what, darwin came up with evolution. Also, the possibility is latent, as evolution keeps going, ones may evolve faster, and thus consider the rest inferior. Such as white europenas did with black africans, moved by darwins ideas.

That doesn’t prove evolution claims inferiority among races of people, promot-
ing inequality and so forth, that is your implication of evolution. Let’s look at it
simply: People began dark-skinned in Africa. People began to migrate North.
Those with dark skin just did not fair as well as lighter skinned people did, by
reason of the production levels of Vitamin D and amount of sunlight (which is
lesser above and below the equator), and that is just how it happened. There
is nothing racist about that, simply a biological implication. Lighter skinned
people also wouldn’t do as well as darker skinned people near the equator
for lack of that protective complexion. Nothing racist, you’re wrong.

Survival of the fittest, not care for the weak, the inferior. Angels, which are superior are put to our service, Jesus, being God is put to our service and cleans our feet. It goes totally against Gods teachings, period.

No, there’s just a logical disconnect there. I still believe in survival
of the fittest, though I guess I should have mentioned also that we
perfect the survival of the fittest rule in nature, as God planned.
I don’t get, by the way, how the cleaning feet part is relevant to
the discussion. Red-herring?

No evidence against? What about the whole science community not supporting deads resurrecting? Still, Jesus resurrection was just an example of countless… If you can decide what to take literally or not, anybody can. We are free to dismiss other parts of Scripture and thus become the judge of what is or is not true in spite of what Jesus and the Bible authors say.
Challenge acepted:

First, I so meant physical evidence. The point of “show me something that proves
what the Bible said about birds is factual” does not call upon you to simply prove
the Bible on birds by pointing a passage on which I was inquiring. Try Again.
http://www.sherv.net/cm/emoticons/hand-gestures/facepalm-hand-gesture-smiley-emoticon.gifOy
Anywho, back to the resurrection. What evidence ought we to expect? What does
science say about this story? What conclusions do scientists make from the evid-
ence that you are talking about?

Jesus said that we ought to pluck out our eyes if they cause us
to sin. Did Jesus really mean that we should? Of course not.

They are very bad translations out there, many focused on discrediting the bible, KJV is a very accurate one. As you say it, it would seem as genesis 1 and 2 contradict each other, but in fact they are not 2 different stories, chapter 2 is more detailed on mans and womans creations.
Part of the confusion results from our English translations, which use the term “earth” when the Hebrew would better be translated “land.”

No, KJV is a terrible translation, I don’t disparage the Bible, but KJV is just bad.
Look it up, and don’t turn to the KJ-onlyites. Seriously now, do some research for once!
Now to Genesis, you’re wrong again. In the first, God made the World, Animals, THEN
man, male and female. In the second, God made the world, there was no man, so God
made man, THEN made animals, different order, then woman. Do your research.

Not life, but the world evolves into a better one, survival of the fittest. It would seem that evil people often survive more in this world, maybe thats were evolution is taking us, into a selfish man, only caring about himself and his survival.

“Survival of the fittest” does not mean “becoming fitter and fitter,” but simply strong
enough AS A SPECIES to survive AS A SPECIES. You are just throwing out total
spin at this point, you simply are not getting it.

Or no, evolution is theoretically going towards perfection, again contradicting the bible.

Again, that is your call, your enforcing on what science says, even on what the Bible says.

 

[ShynSup]

By sacraments you mean baptism, the Eucharist, marriage, confession?
These are actually mentioned in the Bible.
Where do you see 6000 year old creation mentioned anywhere.
Seriously, believe what you want but you aren’t convincing anyone.

Yes, those are the sacraments.

No where in the bible its detailed how somebody should be confirmated. But we still do it that way. Same with marriage. Same with mass. Same with all Holy Tradition. The bible actually does not mention the rosary. But its still a very strong weapon against satan and a wonderful devotion, as Saint Pio said.

 

[Jon_S_1]

Now let’s try this on for size.

According to you,

Adam was created along with the world 6,000 years ago. So it’s been 2000 years since Christ which means all of this happened around 4,000 BC

OK

NOAH WAS born approximately 1,000 years after Adam was created. And the flood happened when Noah was 600 years old.

So that means the global flood occurred around the year 2,400 BC

And yet we have WRITTEN manuscripts dating to that time from other cultures (Assyrians, Egyptians, Hindus, Chinese, and none of these speak of being destroyed by flood during this time.

So either the flood did not happen or it happened way before you think it happened.

Seeing as most cultures and religions have a flood story I would say it definitely happened, but the fact that none of the cultures of the time document it and business carried on as usual, it must not have happened in 2400 BC.

RESPOND WITH FACTS PLEASE

 

[RPRPsych]

"The teachings of the saints are not infallible. Only the pope can teach infallibly.
Pius XII, Allocution to the Gregorian University, Oct. 17, 1953: “The Church has never accepted even the most holy and most eminent Doctor, and does not now accept even a single one of them, as the principal source of truth. The Church certainly considers Thomas and Augustine great Doctors, and she accords them the highest praise; but she recognizes infallibility only in the inspired authors of the Sacred Scriptures. By divine mandate, the interpreter and guardian of the Sacred Scriptures, depository of Sacred Tradition living within her, the Church alone is the entrance to salvation; she alone, by herself, and under the protection and guidance of the Holy Ghost, is the source of truth.”

Please read the entire article which includes discussion if heresies taught by saints ;

johnthebaptist.us/jbw_english/documents/books/rjmi/br18_saints_teachings.pdf

It’s true that some saints have taught things that are not part of the Deposit of Faith.

But none of them have been open heretics.

Also, I wouldn’t use Ibranyi as a source. He’s a sedevacantist and a Holocaust denier:

johnthebaptist.us/jbw_english/documents/menus/menu_conspiracies_holocaust.htm

(warning: do not click on that link unless you’re a strong man.)

 

[ShynSup]

Now let’s try this on for size.

According to you,

Adam was created along with the world 6,000 years ago. So it’s been 2000 years since Christ which means all of this happened around 4,000 BC

OK

NOAH WAS born approximately 1,000 years after Adam was created. And the flood happened when Noah was 600 years old.

So that means the global flood occurred around the year 2,400 BC

And yet we have WRITTEN manuscripts dating to that time from other cultures (Assyrians, Egyptians, Hindus, Chinese, and none of these speak of being destroyed by flood during this time.

So either the flood did not happen or it happened way before you think it happened.

Seeing as most cultures and religions have a flood story I would say it definitely happened, but the fact that none of the cultures of the time document it and business carried on as usual, it must not have happened in 2400 BC.

RESPOND WITH FACTS PLEASE

So you believe in theistic evolution, and the flood?

You are aware that a global flood goes totally against evolution right? The concept of uniformity that has dominated evolutionary thought declares that the present is the key to the past.

Anyways, you dont take literal Genesis but yes the flood.

From my part, I do believe in the flood, the bible says so.

Actually all written history begins in about 3000BC.

 

[ShynSup]

Right, and the first soul-endowed humans DID in fact die. What point are you making?

You are no understanding it would seem.
My point is that theistic evolution dates fossil records of some creatures before humanity. But before humanity there was no death. As death entered the world by sin of man.So evolution is not possible.

That doesn’t prove evolution claims inferiority among races of people, promot-
ing inequality and so forth, that is your implication of evolution. Let’s look at it
simply: People began dark-skinned in Africa. People began to migrate North.
Those with dark skin just did not fair as well as lighter skinned people did, by
reason of the production levels of Vitamin D and amount of sunlight (which is
lesser above and below the equator), and that is just how it happened. There
is nothing racist about that, simply a biological implication. Lighter skinned
people also wouldn’t do as well as darker skinned people near the equator
for lack of that protective complexion. Nothing racist, you’re wrong.

Its not my implication, its what actually happened, and what evolution actually states.
Still, you did not answer to the implications to the future were some may evolve faster than others.

No, there’s just a logical disconnect there. I still believe in survival
of the fittest, though I guess I should have mentioned also that we
perfect the survival of the fittest rule in nature, as God planned.
I don’t get, by the way, how the cleaning feet part is relevant to
the discussion. Red-herring?

The cleaning feet was an example of God at our service. Of God for us, totally contrary to the survival of the fittest. If you want to believe God actually made nature behave this way, contrary to all his teachings, contrary to the whole bible, contrary to what the Catholic faith stands for, so be it, its your decision.

First, I so meant physical evidence. The point of “show me something that proves
what the Bible said about birds is factual” does not call upon you to simply prove
the Bible on birds by pointing a passage on which I was inquiring. Try Again.
http://www.sherv.net/cm/emoticons/hand-gestures/facepalm-hand-gesture-smiley-emoticon.gifOy
Anywho, back to the resurrection. What evidence ought we to expect? What does
science say about this story? What conclusions do scientists make from the evid-
ence that you are talking about?

Jesus said that we ought to pluck out our eyes if they cause us
to sin. Did Jesus really mean that we should? Of course not.

Scientists do not think it was possible, simple as that.
Same for events such as Elijah to heaven, Jonah and the big fish, and all miracles Jesus did. Maybe you should start taking these metaphorically too.

Actually about Matthew 5:29, I don’t know if you are acquainted with speech figures and devices, but that is actually an hyperbole, in order to emphasize. As you know, once you have seen, sin begins in the mind and in the thoughts. Taking out your eyes wont help,much.

No, KJV is a terrible translation, I don’t disparage the Bible, but KJV is just bad.
Look it up, and don’t turn to the KJ-onlyites. Seriously now, do some research for once!
Now to Genesis, you’re wrong again. In the first, God made the World, Animals, THEN
man, male and female. In the second, God made the world, there was no man, so God
made man, THEN made animals, different order, then woman. Do your research.

Yes. I did, a long time ago, thats why I use KJV.
Now, you are saying the bible contradicts itself. As I said before, its a translation error mainly from NIV.

Leupold’s Exposition of Genesis

“Without any emphasis on the sequence of acts the account here records the making of the various creatures and the bringing of them to man. That in reality they had been made prior to the creation of man is so entirely apparent from chapter one as not to require explanation. But the reminder that God had “molded” them makes obvious His power to bring them to man and so is quite appropriately mentioned here. It would not, in our estimation, be wrong to translate yatsar as a pluperfect in this instance: ‘He had molded.’ The insistence of the critics upon a plain past is partly the result of the attempt to make chapters one and two clash at as many points as possible.”

“Survival of the fittest” does not mean “becoming fitter and fitter,” but simply strong
enough AS A SPECIES to survive AS A SPECIES. You are just throwing out total
spin at this point, you simply are not getting it.

Again, that is your call, your enforcing on what science says, even on what the Bible says.

We become more adapted to the world in order to survive. This means less wars, means less disease. A strong specie would realize that wars are no good to survive, nor is conflict. We are actually moving towards destruction rather than survival.

Not mention to Sabbath Holiness, so you have no idea why you go to mass every sunday.

 

[Jon_S_1]

So you believe in theistic evolution, and the flood?

You are aware that a global flood goes totally against evolution right? The concept of uniformity that has dominated evolutionary thought declares that the present is the key to the past.

Anyways, you dont take literal Genesis but yes the flood.

From my part, I do believe in the flood, the bible says so.

Actually all written history begins in about 3000BC.

You did not answer my question.

Try answering my question.

Why do we have so many records from 2400 BC without mention of a flood.

And yes theistic evolution and a flood are perfectly compatible.

 

[Usagi]

Dude, of COURSE the Resurrection and other miracles are impossible according to science! They were impossible according to the “science” of 2000 years ago, too – everyone at Lazarus’ tomb knew that he was not only dead, but dead long enough to decompose.

The whole point of miracles is that they are extraordinary interventions by God that go against the normal order of things. Science studies that normal order. If miracles could be fitted into that order, they would not be miraculous. Looking again at the story of Lazarus, the text tells us that Jesus deliberately waited longer than necessary to head to Bethany, so that Lazarus would not merely be dead but several days dead. No one was going to mistake that miracle for a lucky rescue of a comatose man who was buried alive.

Usagi

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

You are no understanding it would seem.
My point is that theistic evolution dates fossil records of some creatures before humanity. But before humanity there was no death. As death entered the world by sin of man.So evolution is not possible.

Maybe the original state of no death was only to the first humans, until they fouled up
of course, ever think of that? Why believe that animals couldn’t die? What of the lion?
Oh but no . . . those terrible sharp teeth were made “perfect” for vegetation, right? In
light of Scripture, I suspect that the first soul endowed human beings had everlasting
life, but then sinned and died. You still have no reasonable case.

Its not my implication, its what actually happened, and what evolution actually states.
Still, you did not answer to the implications to the future were some may evolve faster than others.

No it’s your implication, you forcing evolution to say something bad, which doesn’t even
demonstrate that it’s not real. Now as for the evolving faster bit, you never asked a ques-
tion, so I can’t give an answer. You and Creationists say evolution is racist, when it was
actually Creationists (and earlier Christian Fundamentalists) who used and still use the
Bible to justify putting down people of other skin color, justify black slavery, and so forth.
Smooth, right?

The cleaning feet was an example of God at our service. Of God for us, totally contrary to the survival of the fittest. If you want to believe God actually made nature behave this way, contrary to all his teachings, contrary to the whole bible, contrary to what the Catholic faith stands for, so be it, its your decision.

Well again, this is not contrary to survival of the fittest. God made us the fittest. We are
made with intelligence and compassion for one another. For such reasons we’ll always
survive as a species. You’re red-herring is entirely useless here. It is by no means con-
trary to Catholic teaching, or the Bible, or God’s teachings, and you still have not prov-
en otherwise. Can you give me something that actually has teeth to it?

Scientists do not think it was possible, simple as that.
Same for events such as Elijah to heaven, Jonah and the big fish, and all miracles Jesus did. Maybe you should start taking these metaphorically too.

Says who? Do you swear that all scientists don’t believe in miracles? True, it is impos-
sible for one to turn water into wine, as far as the laws of physics go, except if you are
God. God COULD HAVE made all things 6,000 years ago, but that is not what the evi-
dence shows, so we are to interpret Genesis differently. Red-Herring!

Actually about Matthew 5:29, I don’t know if you are acquainted with speech figures and devices, but that is actually an hyperbole, in order to emphasize. As you know, once you have seen, sin begins in the mind and in the thoughts. Taking out your eyes wont help,much.

So why is it a figure of speech when Jesus tells us to dismember
ourselves but not when Genesis talks seven days and so forth?

Yes. I did, a long time ago, thats why I use KJV.
Now, you are saying the bible contradicts itself. As I said before, its a translation error mainly from NIV.

Excuse me? You have just lied to everyone again. Where did I say that the Bible
contradicts itself? I do say that there are two Creation accounts which if taken lit-
erally are at odds with each other, but they are not to be taken literally, so they’re
not contradictory. Stop being a lying Creationist already. Be honest.

Also check out these links:geocities.com/Athens/Olympus/5257/kjverror.htm
youtube.com/watch?v=KGgsA0biR_4
youtube.com/watch?v=PA9WBTYWSHQ

We become more adapted to the world in order to survive. This means less wars, means less disease. A strong specie would realize that wars are no good to survive, nor is conflict. We are actually moving towards destruction rather than survival.

That’s not survival of the fittest, that is your own Creationist construct. Evolution does
not guarantee that we survive all diseases, as diseases are evolving as well, which we
can actually observe. Evolution doesn’t promise less wars, again that’s your own ignor-
antly-based construct. You are entirely misappropriating the meaning of the concept of
“Survival of the Fittest.”

Not mention to Sabbath Holiness, so you have no idea why you go to mass every sunday.

I go to mass on Sunday because Jesus rose from the dead on a Sunday, happy?
So funny, back in post #5 I was being criticized for my facepalm and possibly hur-
ting the starter of the thread, but here you are now being somewhat of a hypocrite.

 

[edwest2]

Previously, you said:

So, I was asking you where in the Bible it says that man was created 6,000 years ago,
and that is all you could come up with.

But, I’m starting to think . . .

View attachment 19148

The Church allows thousands or billions of years regarding the age of the earth. It might interest you to check on the current year on the Hebrew calendar and how that date was determined.

Best,
Ed

 

[Aloysium]

The Church allows thousands or billions of years regarding the age of the earth. It might interest you to check on the current year on the Hebrew calendar and how that date was determined.
Best,
Ed

Don’t have time to go more fully into it. What I got from a Judaism info site is what I thought:

The current date on the Hebrew (Jewish) calendar represents the number of years since Creation. This number was determined by adding all the ages of people mentioned in the Bible back to the first day. This does not mean that Jews believe that the universe is only some 5,700 years old though. Indeed many Jews, from Reform to Orthodox, accept the idea that the first six “days” of creation may not have been the 24-hour days we recognize today. For instance, when God separated the waters that process could have taken thousands of years.

Since time is an idea that addresses change happening in the world, I would leave it up to science, (as the study of that which constitutes the physical world), to make determinations as to age.
That said, every theory that pops up (like the previously, for many centuries, widely accepted and very well developed Ptolemaic model of the universe) I would not take as enduring or absolute truth.
One sets a date for the beginning; we have set it at the centre of time, a researched but somewhat arbitrary date as the zero point of our calendar: when the Word was made flesh and came into this world as man.
The Jews set their zero point by adding up the ages of their documanted forebearers.
Does it matter? The age is important insofar as it would be one of the basic ideas that hold the world-view that helps one connect to the world and people within it. I’ve personally been through sufficient situations where 6 turned out to be 9, to have a real good laugh if the six thousand figure were found to be verified by science.