S
StAnastasia
Guest
What was the original context of this post?
- Status
D
da_nolo
Guest
the origional context of that post is me asking you what your post implies, what it means, the story behind it, the gratitude of the attitude towards the beatitudes.
unless you mean thread, cuase this thread is about science and religion, and the Bible.
S
StAnastasia
Guest
I’ve had some strong arguments with atheist anthropologists about this. I argued that the core of the Pentateuch – the Exodus-Sinai-Canaan settlement narratives – are legends with an historical core. I was shot down; these guys relegate the whole of the Pentateuch to the dustbin of myth.
I think many biblical historians reject such radical reductionism. I’m a theologian, not a biblical historian, but the biblical scholars with whom I’m in contact generally read the Genesis through he flood as cosmogonic myth. The patriarchal narratives have historical cores and are overlain with legendary fabrication. The historical books have strong historical and archaeological support, and there is no reason to doubt the prophetic books, although some ore of uncertain or multiple authorship.
So the short answer is “No – I do not classify the entire Old Testament as myth – far from it.”
StAnastasia
S
StAnastasia
Guest
Among people who understand geology, hydrology, sedimentology, biogeography, plate tectonics, orogeny, meteorology, glaciology, and a host of allied sciences, there is no argument. A global flood to the depth of 29,057.5 feet is an absurd notion.so is the world flooding really an arguement?
StAnastasia
B
block
Guest
But I think, according to these scientists that you speak of, that even the idea of God would be an absurd notion also correct?
B
buffalo
Guest
Sure they do. But when did the Church change its view? (you never answer these questions.) After all theologians musings are not official teachings of the church.
O
Orogeny
Guest
B
block
Guest
Pretty much what I am saying is that how can you believe some of the bible and not all of it? There are a lot of things in the bible that CANNOT be explained by humans, even the finest of scientists. So are these the things we throw out or do we as believers just understand that God is great and He can do even the impossible, such as the flood.
R
reggieM
Guest
Only about 70% of them.
S
StAnastasia
Guest
I don’t know that the magisterium regards the entire Bible as literally true.
B
block
Guest
No, I don’t believe that the bible should be taken 100% literally but this is when metaphores are being used. Especially with Jesus’ parrables and a lot in revalations. But, I do believe that the book of Genesis does not fall into that. The story of Adam and Eve, Noah’s Ark, I believe these stories to be true.
B
buffalo
Guest
I need a date and a document.
R
reggieM
Guest
[All must observe] “the rule so wisely laid down by St. Augustine-not to depart from the literal and obvious sense, except only where reason makes it untenable or necessity requires; a rule to which it is the more necessary to adhere strictly in these times, when the thirst for novelty and unrestrained freedom of thought make the danger of error most real and proximate …
But it is absolutely wrong and forbidden, either to narrow inspiration to certain parts only of Holy Scripture, or to admit that the sacred writer has erred.”
Pope Leo XIII
Providentissimus Deus
But it is absolutely wrong and forbidden, either to narrow inspiration to certain parts only of Holy Scripture, or to admit that the sacred writer has erred.”
Pope Leo XIII
Providentissimus Deus
S
StAnastasia
Guest
Of course they’re true – that’s why the Church reads them at teh Easter Vigil!
D
da_nolo
Guest
29,057.5 feet? who says it needed to be that deep? the hieght of all mountains are always changing, along with the sea level through Earths history. The depths of the oceans have largely changed, many aspects of the studied world as we see it today was different during Abraham’s time, Noahs time, Jesus’ time, and way beyond that. and if anyone has stated such notion as absurd, why not mintion archeology, finding bones of fishes ontop of mountain ranges across the globe. how bout the current state in which half of the current surfice being covered by water if merely half the ice caps melt? stated from scientists of coarse, and most of this is what I remember. who knows what may be explored if only studied.
D
da_nolo
Guest
ever heard of the 7 heavenly virtues? it is taught that we must obtain and act in such virtues. They are explained and taugh under what may be recognized as theology.
And inorder to even consider religion, one must be theologian no? to study life, and the religion.
D
da_nolo
Guest
heres a brain teaser…even the parables are literally true. everything in the Bible is literally true, since it is based on everything around us…the whole universe, heaven, hell, etc. whether you notice it or not. list a parable and it will be explained as true. pick the most metephorical quote from the Bible, and it will be literally true.
I mean, how would it not be? if the Word is Good and the Word is God, how could anyone say that the entire Word of God is not entirely, literally true, when God is literally True? Of coarse our enemy would try and counter this by creating some kind of field of ‘grey’, usualy done in that style.
F
Fran65
Guest
Actually its 30% according to the most recent surveys quoted by Alister McGrath in his book ‘The Twilight of Atheism’. 40% of scientists surveyed believed in a God or gods (not all believe in the Christian God - Hindus/Sikhs for example) and 30% were quoted as agnostic (weren’t sure).
S
StAnastasia
Guest
You are right – that’s why the story of Noah’s boat trip is literally impossible, because it had to have happened roughly 4,500 years ago. Everest was only 196 feet lower then than it is now. So the flood would have had to be 28861.5 feet deep (if it was fifteen cubits above the summit of Everest).
From the USGS website:
"The Himalayas and the Tibetan Plateau to the north have risen very rapidly. In just 50 million years, peaks such as Mt. Everest have risen to heights of more than 9 km. The impinging of the two landmasses has yet to end. The Himalayas continue to rise more than 1 cm a year – a growth rate of 10 km in a million years! If that is so, why aren’t the Himalayas even higher? Scientists believe that the Eurasian Plate may now be stretching out rather than thrusting up, and such stretching would result in some subsidence due to gravity.
"Among the most dramatic and visible creations of plate-tectonic forces are the lofty Himalayas, which stretch 2,900 km along the border between India and Tibet. This immense mountain range began to form between 40 and 50 million years ago, when two large landmasses, India and Eurasia, driven by plate movement, collided. Because both these continental landmasses have about the same rock density, one plate could not be subducted under the other. The pressure of the impinging plates could only be relieved by thrusting skyward, contorting the collision zone, and forming the jagged Himalayan peaks.
“About 225 million years ago, India was a large island still situated off the Australian coast, and a vast ocean (called Tethys Sea) separated India from the Asian continent. When Pangaea broke apart about 200 million years ago, India began to forge northward. By studying the history – and ultimately the closing-- of the Tethys, scientists have reconstructed India’s northward journey. About 80 million years ago, India was located roughly 6,400 km south of the Asian continent, moving northward at a rate of about 9 m a century. When India rammed into Asia about 40 to 50 million years ago, its northward advance slowed by about half. The collision and associated decrease in the rate of plate movement are interpreted to mark the beginning of the rapid uplift of the Himalayas.”
D
da_nolo
Guest
Most estimations are off by 10 (years, feet, yards, decades, what ever). Then again that is just what they will tell you in most average estimations. Plus as said before the sea level has not been constant, even at today’s high tide/low tide adjustments, 5 years to 10 years ago was different. Establishing a correct or even good enough estimate on where the average was thousands of years ago is near impossible (non probable). So the estimation in the ability to cover the earth in water will naturaly be off. The probability of establishing known molecules within the air and the amount of such molecules and their ability to form(like into water) on special conditions is low as well.
Secondly, if there seems to be enough molecules to form the oceans, there are plenty to flood it no?
- Status