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

[ShynSup]

Now you show your true colors. You write “catholic” as your religion but you are just an “undercover” fundamentalist person who thinks that the Catholic Church and pope are Satan. Real nice .

Well you’ve convinced everyone here to NOT listen to you. Well done.

Woa, that is actually going far, wow…

So you go as far as lying and putting words in my mouth, that is nice.

No need to over exaggerate, it is logical, and well know, that satan attacks the church and wants to destroy it, and to accomplish that infiltration is one of his best options. Thats why we must be careful, thats it.

But anyways, we are diverging from the topic, the real thing in discussion is genesis and its interpretation, which if you have the authority to decide which parts can be taken literally or not, then well, people can do whatever they want with the bible…

 

[Jon_S_1]

Ha

So, you dont see it that way, but STILL, if its not said in the bible its not right for you? Even if a Saint says so, following the bible of course, he did not got to that number just by random, but by following and studying the bible.

"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

 

[ShynSup]

"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

Heresies taught y saints wut?

If so, how did God even allowed the miracles in their names, that made them saints

 

[Jon_S_1]

Woa, that is actually going far, wow…

So you go as far as lying and putting words in my mouth, that is nice.

No need to over exaggerate, it is logical, and well know, that satan attacks the church and wants to destroy it, and to accomplish that infiltration is one of his best options. Thats why we must be careful, thats it.

But anyways, we are diverging from the topic, the real thing in discussion is genesis and its interpretation, which if you have the authority to decide which parts can be taken literally or not, then well, people can do whatever they want with the bible…

No I don’t have the authority. Nor do you. The church does. The church has repeatedly taught that Genesis prior to chapter 8 is not literal.

You are the one insisting otherwise.

Did you or did you not say that the Vatican has been infiltrated (taken over) by Satan and that post Vatican II IS ESSENTIALLY heresy?

You did, and if it’s not what you meAnt feel free to retract.

 

[ShynSup]

Now let me quote Augustine (as someone already did here):
"It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation
or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, a-
bout the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by exper-
ience, even by one who is not a Christian. **It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [a non-believ-
er] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. **In view of this and in keeping it in mind cons–
tantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of
obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation."
– (The Literal Interpretation of Genesis)

Yup, a better literal interpretation.

 

[Gorgias]

Yup, a better literal interpretation.

LOL! Go back and read that document again – the ‘better interpretation’ Augustine is talking about is one that allows acknowledgement of truths that science has discovered (since, in that case, the literal interpretation was only mistakenly thought to be correct)…!

 

[Jon_S_1]

Heresies taught y saints wut?

If so, how did God even allowed the miracles in their names, that made them saints

Read the link, I’m not going to rewrite it for you.

We are all able to become saints and we are all sinners. The saints included. We are not divinely protected from teaching error. Only the popes office and Gods church receive such protections.

There are many examples of saints teaching error, generally corrected during their life, but nonetheless less taught error.

Even if you don’t read the whole article the paragraph I posted by Pope Pius XII says as much.

 

[ShynSup]

No I don’t have the authority. Nor do you. The church does. The church has repeatedly taught that Genesis prior to chapter 8 is not literal.

You are the one insisting otherwise.

Did you or did you not say that the Vatican has been infiltrated (taken over) by Satan and that post Vatican II IS ESSENTIALLY heresy?

You did, and if it’s not what you meAnt feel free to retract.

Actually the church is neutral on the matter:

Catholics are at liberty to believe that creation took a few days or a much longer period, according to how they see the evidence, and subject to any future judgment of the Church (Pius XII’s 1950 encyclical Humani Generis 36–37).

And no, I never said so, and do not think so either. Satans infiltration is not that drastic thank God, nevertheless, its not a detail, and we should be careful as I previously said.

 

[Gorgias]

Sorry, I am not following you,

The qoute is pretty clear my man, Agustine says the scrpture says humanity is 6000years old.

No… Augustine is demonstrating that an assertion of the “eternal” existence of man is untrue, as is any faux-historical account of the origins of humanity. If all you take from that quote is the “6000 years” reference, you’re missing the point of the chapter…

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

What about mmmm, the bible? Read it?

The entire Bible is not to be read with only one means of interpretation. It’s not a book,
the Bible is a library, comprising of various sections with differently intended purposes.

Do you actually think God will have bothered to specifically redact the Genesis that way, of there was no actual purpose on it?

Yes, I believe God specifically revealed Genesis the way he did for a certain audience
in a certain place in a certain time. I explained this in a thread regarding how to recon-
cile Genesis with natural selection (evolution):
( Judas Thaddeushttp://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif)

The sequence of creation has an ORDER, and its not random, its there for a reason, not just because the author liked it that way.

Where did “random” enter the picture? I sure didn’t say anything about “random.”

The Genesis is not compatible with evolution at all.

GOOD, because Genesis is not designed to handle scientific
matters. Don’t make the Bible do what it is not intended to do.

Image and likness means both spiritually and physically.

O-kay . . . I don’t believe that the Catholic Church has your back there.
God is not a physical being, nor is God as to his eternal nature visible.
Jesus Christ came, yes, in the flesh, but the flesh is not eternal. You
are so messed up there doctrinally, you don’t even know!

 

[Jon_S_1]

Actually the church is neutral on the matter:

Catholics are at liberty to believe that creation took a few days or a much longer period, according to how they see the evidence, and subject to any future judgment of the Church (Pius XII’s 1950 encyclical Humani Generis 36–37).

And no, I never said so, and do not think so either. Satans infiltration is not that drastic thank God, nevertheless, its not a detail, and we should be careful as I previously said.

So what in that paragraph says literal to you?

Literal means six days. The Pope says we are at liberty to say it took more than 6 days. So that means other than a literal position can be held.

But as I said the church has taught that prior to chapter 8 is not literal.

Since Leo XIII, the Magisterium has progressively discouraged the literalistic reading of Genesis favored by Protestants. Can a Catholic nonetheless read Genesis as a scientific treatise? Yes, if he wants to — but he may find himself in the dilemma of trying to force scientific data into a biblical template which was never meant to receive it. And he will be severely handicapped in doing apologetics in a post-Christian world. He will, in fact, be the reverse of apostolic if he tries to explain to anyone the doctrine of creation in the terms of ancient Hebrew cosmology.

The test of a first-rate intellect, it has been said, is the ability to hold two seemingly opposed ideas and retain the ability to function. A brilliant 20th century Catholic apologist, Frank J. Sheed, wrote of the creation account in his masterpiece, Theology and Sanity. His words are an invitation to Catholics tempted by biblical literalism to use their reason and not engage in overly simplistic readings of Scripture. The author of Genesis, Sheed writes,

tells us of the fact but not the process: there was an assembly of elements of the material universe, but was it instantaneous or spread over a considerable space and time? Was it complete in one act, or by stages? Were those elements, for instance, formed into an animal body which as one generation followed another gradually evolved — not, of course, by the ordinary laws of matter but under the special guidance of God — to a point where it was capable of union with a spiritual soul, which God created and infused into it? The statement in Genesis does not seem actually to exclude this, but it certainly does not say it. Nor has the Church formally said that it is not so.
Catholics in reality have no cause to be timid about Scripture or science. They simply need to distinguish between two complementary but distinct orders of knowledge — theological and scientific — and allow each its due competence. They should be extremely cautious about mixing the two. The Magisterium learned this the hard way in the Galileo affair. A faithful Catholic should be calmly anchored in the proposition that truth is indivisible, and the works of God cannot contradict what He has chosen to reveal through Scripture and Tradition.

catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0034.html

 

[ShynSup]

Read the link, I’m not going to rewrite it for you.

We are all able to become saints and we are all sinners. The saints included. We are not divinely protected from teaching error. Only the popes office and Gods church receive such protections.

There are many examples of saints teaching error, generally corrected during their life, but nonetheless less taught error.

Even if you don’t read the whole article the paragraph I posted by Pope Pius XII says as much.

I ve read page 11 in the hope of some examples, but for me, the link is just a guy saying “saints have made teachings mistakes” followed by a procedure of how to realize if its actually a mistake, or a statement out of context, a misquote, etc.

I am quite sure saints have made mistakes in their lives, sins, they are human, and even are more attacked by satan than us, due to their grace.

But still, saying a saint, tool of God, inspired by God, can be mistaken when evangelizing is parallel to saying apostles could have been mistaken when they evangelized.

Anyways, Genesis is to be taken literal, theistic evolution theory creates not only that mistake with the bible, but many more other, and not with the bible, but with the Catholic faith and teachings.

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

Heresies taught y saints wut?

If so, how did God even allowed the miracles in their names, that made them saints

Nobody is perfect. Also, Creationism is not heresy, it’s just simp-
ly wrong. Where are you getting this notion of heresy? Somehow
I think you brought that up.

 

[edwest2]

Why should the church say anything? Should the church be the authority on physics or biology or gold mining?

This is not the church 's issue. They are a spiritual and theological institution. Neither of the creation theories is against the Christian theology so they have no reason to say one way or the other. Even if it was proven completely by science (which I’d say it is).

It seems by the couple threads i have interacted with you on, you are highly influenced by Protestant fundamentalism. Fundamentalist HAVE to believe in a young earth. I would just urge you to focus more on Catholic sources.

As for Augustine, as the good deacon mentioned you are reading him and inferring far too much.

Augustine most likely believed the sun went around the earth, but Of course with today’s scientific knowledge he would not hold such a position. You can’t judge science based entirely on someone from the 4th century.

Now if the universe is so young, why are their galaxies and stats we can see with our telescopes that are billions of light years away.

1 billion light years means the light we are seeing today left that star 1 billion years ago. It’s been traveling at the speed of light for 1 billion years before we see it.

How do you explain the erosion of something like the Grand Canyon?

How do you explain the uplift if the mountains occurring in 6000 years?

There is so much science to support an old earth. Young earth creationism is a religious belief not a scientific one:

Check this out:
catholic.com/tracts/creation-and-genesis

The Church has made scientific pronouncements. The Church has a Pontifical Academy of Sciences. Then there is the Vatican Observatory.

"The Time Question

Much less has been defined as to when the universe, life, and man appeared. The Church has infallibly determined that the universe is of finite age—that it has not existed from all eternity—but it has not infallibly defined whether the world was created only a few thousand years ago or whether it was created several billion years ago."

Peace,
Ed

 

[Jon_S_1]

I ve read page 11 in the hope of some examples, but for me, the link is just a guy saying “saints have made teachings mistakes” followed by a procedure of how to realize if its actually a mistake, or a statement out of context, a misquote, etc.

I am quite sure saints have made mistakes in their lives, sins, they are human, and even are more attacked by satan than us, due to their grace.

But still, saying a saint, tool of God, inspired by God, can be mistaken when evangelizing is parallel to saying apostles could have been mistaken when they evangelized.

Anyways, Genesis is to be taken literal, theistic evolution theory creates not only that mistake with the bible, but many more other, and not with the bible, but with the Catholic faith and teachings.

I’m sorry, but are all saints Bishops?

No they are not.

Bishops and apostles are protected by the holy orders but even that has limits.

You should not hold ANYTHING as infallible unless it is;

1. in the Bible
2. declared by the Pope ex cathedra to be so
3. the catechism

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

Yup, a better literal interpretation.

So it’s in one eye out the other for you, huh?

 

[ShynSup]

So what in that paragraph says literal to you?

Literal means six days. The Pope says we are at liberty to say it took more than 6 days.* So that means other than a literal position can be held*.

But as I said the church has taught that prior to chapter 8 is not literal.

Why you people keep inventing stuff and putting words in my mouth i never said?
That paragraph was not refuting your non literal interpretation, was never meant for that, I dont even said so. It was to proventhat the church remains neutral, as both literal and non literal interpretations can be made. Im stunned, you got really serious reading comprehension issues or what?

So “Church has taught”=“Leo XIII, the Magisterium has progressively discouraged the literalistic reading of Genesi”

Let me remaind you, in this matter the pope is not infallible.

 

[Jon_S_1]

Why you people keep inventing stuff and putting words in my mouth i never said?
That paragraph was not refuting your non literal interpretation, was never meant for that, I dont even said so. It was to proventhat the church remains neutral, as both literal and non literal interpretations can be made. Im stunned, you got really serious reading comprehension issues or what?

So “Church has taught”=“Leo XIII, the Magisterium has progressively discouraged the literalistic reading of Genesi”

Let me remaind you, in this matter the pope is not infallible.

Then give me evidence…documents…scientific reports anything to back up your claims.

I have, others have,

And yet you are stubborn. You attack us and repeat the same paragraph from Augustine or some verses over and over

Give evidence. Create real dialogue instead it is like talking to a walk. You just go from one topic to the next to the next throwing out words and statements without any support.

 

[ShynSup]

Nobody is perfect. Also, Creationism is not heresy, it’s just simp-
ly wrong. Where are you getting this notion of heresy? Somehow
I think you brought that up.

Another one with reading comprehension issues… Maybe scroll up and read who said saints taught heresy.

And no, its not wrong, tehistic evolution is wrong, and inconflict with the bible in numerous ways and many other matters:

Human equality, they might be inferior human races…

The origin of death as consequence of sin. Fossil records and studies claiming sickness, disease, death before Adam and Eve actually evolved and sinned…

Evolution is based on “survival of the fittest” and the reign of tooth and claw, you think that goes according to Gods teachings?

Just because biblical statments dont go with todays science does not mean they have to be taken as metaphorical, what about Jesus ressurection, where is science there?

(Matthew 19:4, NKJV). The expression “at the beginning” is the same expression used in the first three verses of Genesis, you actually say “at the beginning” means millions of years until Adam and Eve evolved?

The fourth commandment (see Exodus 20:8-11) says that the Sabbath is based on the Creation week when God created the world in six days and rested on the seventh day and blessed it. But, its all metaphorical right? So why keep the Sabbath Holy?

The Bible says that God created this world perfect in the beginning, but that since the entrance of sin, it has become more and more degenerate, evolution states otherwise.

 

[ShynSup]

I’m sorry, but are all saints Bishops?

No they are not.

Bishops and apostles are protected by the holy orders but even that has limits.

You should not hold ANYTHING as infallible unless it is;

1. in the Bible
2. declared by the Pope ex cathedra to be so
3. the catechism

The bible will do thanks.