Science & Religion

  • Thread starter Thread starter epiphany08
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Personally, I do not see why someone has to convince all the world’s biologists and geneticists of any theory. I, for one, totally respect the intelligence of these good people and have confidence that they can figure out things for themselves as they would know how to use “Google”.😉
What I meant is that Tonrey’s theory that the human race began with a single couple goes against everything biologists and geneticists know about human evolution. Convincing them that they should abandon what they know from science in favor of Tonrey’s single-couple theory will be a formidable task. For starters, he should move the theory from merely being discussed on a website to being discussed among professional scientists – in classrooms and laboratories, in major conferences and professional journals. Otherwise the theory will remain here.
 
Intelligence itself is not intelligently designed, yet it intelligently designs?

Go figure! 😃

If nature contains a being that can intelligently design, why is it irrational to believe that nature itself might be intelligently designed so as to produce a creature that intelligently designs??? :confused:
I suppose it wouldn’t be inherently irrational, but I don’t think I’d believe it without compelling evidence.
But the key questions are, “Where did ‘nature’ or ‘the fundamental laws’ come from?” and, “Why do they exist at all?” The answers to those questions lie outside of science.
You may be right, but where does that leave us?
 
The Church has defended herself from evolution from the very beginning and the Hebrews did even before that.
False – you should read Fr. Mariano Artigas’ excellent book Negotiating Darwin: The Vatican Confronts Evolution, 1877-1902. There was no Church campaign against evolution.
And now we know that catastrophism is responsible for many geological features.
True.
Only in the last 100 years have an old earth developed and changed several times going from millions of years, to 1.5 B and then to 4.6B and now back down several hundred thousand ( I think i got those right so don’t yell at me…)
Incorrect. The “deep history of time” is several centuries old. The universe is now recognized as being 13.7 billion years old, and the earth and solar system around 4.5 billion years old.
 
The reason that there are no Catholic doctrines on young earth, old earth, and middle earth is that the material/physical makeup of mother earth is not part of faith or morals. The earth, while created by God, belongs in the material domain. It definitely is not spiritual.
I personally see no contradiction between the Catholic faith and a belief in a 4.5 billion year old earth. I don’t know why there are certain Catholics who want to desperately prove that the earth is only 10000 years old.
 
What I meant is that Tonrey’s theory that the human race began with a single couple goes against everything biologists and geneticists know about human evolution. Convincing them that they should abandon what they know from science in favor of Tonrey’s single-couple theory will be a formidable task. For starters, he should move the theory from merely being discussed on a website to being discussed among professional scientists – in classrooms and laboratories, in major conferences and professional journals. Otherwise the theory will remain here.
For your information,
Tonyrey’s theory that the human race began with a single couple is actually a doctrine of the Catholic Church.

My post 1199 stands as written. I do not believe one has to treat intelligent scientists as if they are immune to general information such as the Catholic Church does exist despite rumors to the contrary.

I can understand that Catholic doctrine may not be part of your environment. However, I can assure you that the Catholic doctrine of two, real sole parents of the human species has been around for centuries.
 
I personally see no contradiction between the Catholic faith and a belief in a 4.5 billion year old earth. I don’t know why there are certain Catholics who want to desperately prove that the earth is only 10000 years old.
The Catholic Church does not deal with the age of the earth, period. Let the “certain Catholics” debate all they want. It’s no skin off your nose.
 
For your information, Tonyrey’s theory that the human race began with a single couple is actually a doctrine of the Catholic Church.
Of course. And in order to gain wider acceptance for this theory, it needs to be brought to the attention of scientists, both Catholic and non-Catholic.
My post 1199 stands as written. I do not believe one has to treat intelligent scientists as if they are immune to general information such as the Catholic Church does exist despite rumors to the contrary.
I don’t know of scientists who are unaware that the Catholic church exists.
I can understand that Catholic doctrine may not be part of your environment.
Tut tut, Granny, insulting another forum member is contrary to the spirit of Catholic Answers. Catholic doctrine is very much part of my daily environment, in my prayer and worship, in my teaching, research and publishing.
However, I can assure you that the Catholic doctrine of two, real sole parents of the human species has been around for centuries.
I know – it dates back to a pre-scientific era.
 
Speaking of challenges…

For interesting information about the challenge of human origin, spend some time reading paragraphs 355 - 421 in the* Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition*.

On-line scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

However, I recommend the hard copy where one can highlight challenging thoughts. Also, I like reading in a comfy chair, the book in one hand and dark chocolate in the other.😛
 
Granny said:
the Catholic doctrine of two, real sole parents of the human species has been around for centuries.
to which StAnastasia replied:
I know – it dates back to a pre-scientific era.
Which seems to contradict this statement:
Catholic doctrine is very much part of my daily environment, in my prayer and worship, in my teaching, research and publishing.
Your posts collectively, and many individually, imply that Catholic doctrine on two original human parents, which is a De Fide teaching, is subject to modification by scientific circles, and/or by theological circles which are not part of the magisterium, and further, that without some scientific “iimprimatur,” such Church doctrine need not be believed, should not be believed, has no authenticity. That is the contradiction being presented.

Also, you have voiced skepticism on this thread that God could have, let alone did, break into time to distinguish mankind from other members of the animal kingdom, by virtue of a soul whose characteristics differ from the divine signature present in the rest of creation. So, do you believe in a kind of spiritual “development,” in which ensoulment was perfected from rudimentary phases of evolution, pre-man, to some definitively spectacular phase – and that’s what the authors of Genesis are knowingly or unknowingly communicating?

(So far, your answers regarding the radically human soul are vague and unconvincing.)
 
. Catholic doctrine is very much part of my daily environment, in my prayer and worship, in my teaching, research and publishing.
While I am truly delighted that you are doing the above, I just noticed something interesting.

My comment was: “However, I can assure you that the Catholic doctrine of two, real sole parents of the human species has been around for centuries.”

your reply was
I know – it dates back to a pre-scientific era.
Are you affirming that Adam and Eve, as the sole parents of humanity, truly existed in the pre-scientific era?

I really hope that is what you are doing. It is a blessing when Catholics accept and believe in the Catholic doctrine of monogenism, a single source for human nature.
 
Code:
Nope. Original sin isn’t mentioned in the OT, the concept is based, or so I’m told, on a couple of verses by Paul. That’s not to criticize it in any way, but it remains that you won’t find it anywhere in the teaching of Christ, and therefore it can't have any possible effect on belief in Christ as God.
The Christian Church inherited most of their theology from the Jews, because salvation is of the Jews. Original sin is one of those doctrines. I am not clear what you are referring to when you say “original sin isn’t mentioned in the OT”, but you are right about Paul. He describes original sin as “the desires of the flesh” as being opposed to the Spirit. This is what my Latin brethren call “concupiscense” or the tendency of man toward evil, and away from God. The OT is full of references of this kind.

Ps 51:5
Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity,
and in sin did my mother conceive me.

Since the Fall, we are all born into this world in a condition of being separated from God.
Code:
If you asked people for a passage about the spiritual soul, would any of them really suggest, or even consider, Gen 1-3? I’d have thought anything Gen 1-3 says is revealed more transparently elsewhere.
What I’m getting at is the shear irrelevancy of adam-and-eve.
This is a very narrow minded point of view. Yes, perhaps there are other passages that also shed light on our condition of being slaves to the flesh, but this condition begins at the Fall of Adam and Eve.
How many lost souls come to Christ through adam-and-eve, how many hungry are fed, sick healed, souls saved, wars stopped, bridges built, through faith in adam-and-eve? None. And if that result is nada, theories about whether they were specially created or evolved or whatever aren’t going to improve it. It’s still at most a big fat zero, except that since the fisticuffs put some off, it goes negative, quite possibly it generates atheists.
I agree with the point you are making here, but it is not necessary to exclude the theological basis of our condition in order to effectively evangelize. The theological foundations of Adam and Eve prevent heresies such as modern humanism.
I’m not going for you here, by adam-and-eve-ism I mean every Catholic, every Christian, every creationist, evolutionist or whatever who thinks Gen 1-3 is in any way not angels on pinheads. I am fearless. I am invincible. (the last sentence is to be said in a Russian accent, it’s from a Bond movie).
I can also see your point about the bickering that goes on about the meaning of the story. However…

Rom 15:4
4 For whatever was written in former days was written for our instruction…

We must approach all of scripture from the point of view that it contains essentials
for our instruction. We are not at liberty to decide that this or that passage “does not apply”.
 
False – you should read Fr. Mariano Artigas’ excellent book Negotiating Darwin: The Vatican Confronts Evolution, 1877-1902. There was no Church campaign against evolution.

.
Irenaeus, (140-202): "For in as many days as this world was made, in so many thousand years shall it be concluded… in six days created things were completed…” (Against Heresies 5, 28, 3).
Clement of Alexandria (150-216): “From Adam to the deluge are comprised two thousand one hundred and forty-eight years, four days” (ANF, Vol. 2, p. 332).
Clement of Alexandria (150-216): “…but the earth is from the waters: and before the whole six days’ formation of the things that were made, the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the water. The water was the beginning of the world…” (Catechetical Lectures, 3, 5).
Hippolytus (160-235): “But it was right to speak not of the ‘first day,’ but of ‘one day,’ in order that by saying ‘one,’ he might show that it returns on its orbit, and, while it remains one, makes up the week…On the first day God made what He made out of nothing.” (Genesis 1:5, 1:6; ANF, vol. 5, p. 163).
Hippolytus (160-235): "When, therefore, Moses has spoken of ‘the six days in which God made heaven and earth’…Simon, in a manner already specified, giving these and other passages of Scripture a different application from the one intended by the holy writers, defies himself.” Refutation of All Heresies, Book VI, Ch IX).
Theophilus (c. 185): “Of this six days’ work no man can give a worthy explanation and description of all its parts…on account of the exceeding greatness and riches of the wisdom of God which there is in the six days’ work above narrated” (Autolycus 2,12).
Theophilus (c. 185): “God…made the existent out of the non-existent.” (Autolycus 2,4).
Theophilus (c. 185): “On the fourth day the luminaries came into existence. Since God has foreknowledge, he understood the nonsense of the foolish philosophers who were going to say that the things produced on earth came from the stars, so that they might set God aside. In order therefore that the truth might be demonstrated, plants and seeds came into existence before the stars. For what comes into existence later cannot cause what is prior to it.” Theophilus, 2.15.
Theophilus (c. 185): “…the world is created and is providentially governed by the God who made everything. And the whole period of time and the years can be demonstrated to those who wish to learn the truth…The total number of years from the creation of the world is 5,695.” Theophilus, 3.25, 28.
Theophilus (c. 185): “If some period has escaped our notice, says 50 and 100 or even 200 years, at any rate it is not myriads, or thousands or years as it was for Plato…and the rest of those who wrote falsehoods. It may be that we do not know the exact total of all the years simply because the additional months and days are not recorded in the sacred books.” Theophilus, 3.29.
Origen (c. 200): “the Mosaic account of the creation, which teaches that the world is not yet ten thousand years old, but very much under that.” Origen, Against Celsus, 1.19.
Lactantius (250-317): “God completed the world and this admirable work of nature in the space of six days, as is contained in the secrets of Holy Scripture, and consecrated the seventh day…For there are seven days, by the revolutions of which in order the circles of years are made up…Therefore, since all the works of God were completed in six days, the world must continue in its present state through six ages, that is, six thousand years…For the great day of God is limited by a circle of a thousand years, as the prophet shows, who says, ‘In Thy sight, O Lord, a thousand years are as one day.” …And as God labored during those six days in creating such great works, so His religion and truth must labor during these six thousand years… (Institutes 7,14).
Victorinus (c. 280): “God produced the entire mass for the adornment of his majesty in six days. On the seventh day, he consecrated it with a blessing” (On the Creation of the World).
Ephrem the Syrian (306-373): “‘In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth,’ that is, the substance of the heavens and the substance of the earth. So let no one think that there is anything allegorical in the works of the six days. No one can rightly say that the things that pertain to these days were symbolic.” (Commentary on Genesis,1:1, FC 91:74)
Methodius (c. 311): “For you seem to me, O Theophila, to have discussed those words of the Scripture amply and clearly, and to have set them forth as they are without mistake. For it is a dangerous thing wholly to despise the literal meaning, as has been said, and especially of Genesis, where the unchangeable decrees of God for the constitution of the universe are set forth, in agreement with which, even until now, the world is perfectly ordered, most beautifully in accordance with a perfect rule, until the Lawgiver Himself having re-arranged it, wishing to order it anew, shall break up the first laws of nature by a fresh disposition. But, since it is not fitting to leave the demonstration of the argument unexamined – and, so to speak, half-lame – come let us, as it were completing our pair, bring forth the analogical sense, looking more deeply into the Scripture; for Paul is not to be despised when he passed over the literal meaning, and showed that the word extended to Christ and the Church.” (Banquet of the Ten Virgins, Discourse III, Ch 2).
 
Cyril of Jerusalem (315-386): “In six days God made the world…The sun, however resplendent with bright beams, yet was made to give light to man, yea, all living creatures were formed to serve us: herbs and trees were created for our enjoyment…The sun was formed by a mere command, but man by God’s hands” (Catechetical Lectures 12, 5).
Epiphanius (315-403): “Adam, who was fashioned from the earth on the sixth day and received breath, became a living being (for he was not, as some suppose, begun on the fifth day, and completed on the sixth; those who say have the wrong idea), and was simple and innocent, without any other name.” (Panarion 1:1, translated by Phillip R. Amidon).
Basil (329-379): “’And there was evening and morning, one day.’ Why did he say ‘one’ and not ‘first?’ He said ‘one’ because he was defining the measure of day and night…, since the twenty-four hours fill up the interval of one day.” (Hexameron 2, 8).
Basil (329-379): “Thus were created the evening and the morning. Scripture means the space of a day and a night…If it therefore says ‘one day,’ it is from a wish to determine the measure of day and night, and to combine the time that they contain. Now twenty-four hours fills up the space of one day – we mean of a day and of a night” (Hexameron 2, 8). Eustathius, bishop of Antioch, called Basil’s interpretation of Genesis 1 an “overall great commentary (PG 18, 705-707).
Gregory of Nyssa (335-394): “Before I begin, let me testify that there is nothing contradictory in what the saintly Basil wrote about the creation of the world since no further explanation is needed. They should suffice and alone take second place to the divinely inspired Testament. Let anyone who hearkens to our attempts through a leisurely reading be not dismayed if they agree with our words. We do not propose a dogma which gives occasion for calumny; rather, we wish to express only our own insights so that what we offer does not detract from the following instruction. Thus let no one demand from me questions which seem to fall in line with common opinion, either from holy Scripture or explained by our teacher. My task is not to fathom those matters before us which appear contradictory; rather, permit me to employ my own resources to understand the text’s objective. With God’s help we can fathom what the text means which follows a certain defined order regarding creation. ‘In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth’ [Gen 1.1], and the rest which pertains to the cosmogenesis which the six days encompass.” (Hexaemeron, PG 44:68-69).
Ambrose (340-397): “But Scripture established a law of twenty-four hours, including both day and night, should be given the name of day only, as if one were to say the length of one day is twenty-four hours in extent.” (Hexameron 1:37, FC 42:42).
Ambrose (340-397): “In the beginning of time, therefore God created heaven and earth. Time proceeds from this world, not before the world. And the day is a division of time, not its beginning.” (Hexameron 1:20, FC 42:19).
Ambrose (340-397): “But now we seem to have reached the end of our discourse, since the 6th day is completed and the sum total of the work has been concluded.” (Hexameron 6:75, FC 42:282).
Chrysostom (344-407): “Acknowledging that God could have created the world ‘in a single day, nay in a single moment,’ he chose ‘a sort of succession and established things by parts’…so that, accurately interpreted by that blessed prophet Moses, we do not fall in with those who are guided by human reasonings” (PG, Homily 3, col 35).
Victorinus (c. 355-361): "The Creation of the World: In the beginning God made the light, and divided it in the exact measure of twelve hours by day and by night, for this reason, doubtless, that day might bring over the night as an occasion of rest for men’s labours; that, again, day might overcome, and thus that labour might be refreshed with this alternate change of rest, and that repose again might be tempered by the exercise of day. “On the fourth day He made two lights in the heaven, the greater and the lesser, that the one might rule over the day, the other over the night… (cf. (NPNF1, vol. 7, pp. 341-343).”
Augustine (354-430): “Some hold the same opinion regarding men that they hold regarding the world itself, that they have always been…And when they are asked, how…the reply that most, if not all lands, were so desolated at intervals by fire and flood, that men were greatly reduced in numbers, and…thus there was at intervals a new beginning made…But they say what they think, not what they know. They are deceived…by those highly mendacious documents which profess to give the history of many thousand years, though reckoning by the sacred writings, we find that not 6,000 years have yet passed.” Augustine, The City of God, 12.10.
 
http://www.scripturecatholic.com/images/horbar.gif
**
**
Code:
				In affirming the Church Fathers and the Tradition of the Church,  the Magisterium has infallibly taught that God created all things,  material and spiritual, out of nothing.  Here is a very brief chronology  of the Church’s teaching on the creation of the universe:
561 – Pope Pelagius I writes a letter to King Childebert I in which he states: “For I confess that…Adam and his wife, were not born of other parents, but were created, the one from the earth, the other from the rib of man.” The early Church always affirmed that man was formed from the earth, and not from an ape.
1215 – Lateran Council IV – “God created both orders out of nothing from the beginning of time, the spiritual and corporeal, that is, the angelic and the earthly.” The Lateran Council infallibly proclaims that God created the spiritual (angels) and corporeal (humans, animals, plants, heavenly bodies) “out of nothing” (ex nihilo).
1860 – Council of Cologne – “Our first parents were formed immediately by God. Therefore, we declare that…those…who…assert…man emerged from spontaneous continuous change of imperfect nature to the more perfect, is clearly opposed to Sacred Scripture and to the Faith.” The Church again affirms that man is not the product of an evolutionary process. Man was formed “immediately.”
1870 – Vatican Council I issues an infallible dogmatic statement with an accompanying anathema: “If anyone does not confess that the world and all things which are contained in it, both spiritual and material, as regards their whole substance, have been produced by God from nothing, let him be anathema.” Once again, the Church infallibly proclaims that “the world and all things” in it are the product of an ex nihilo creation. In addition, the Church, for the first time, adds the phrase “as regards their whole substance.” This phrase essentially prevents anyone from advancing the theory of evolution (that is, arguing that God made some parts, but evolution contributed to the other parts). Moreover, the Church affirms Lateran Council IV that both the “spiritual and material” were made out of nothing. Spiritual refers to the creation of angels, and no one has argued that angels were created by an evolutionary process. There is never any distinction between how God created the angels (instantaneously, out of nothing) and how God created humans (instantaneously, out of nothing).
1880 – Pope Leo XIII writes his encyclical Arcanum Divinae Sapientiae in which he states: “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 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.” Pope Leo’s interpretation of Genesis suggests a literal six day creation. This is because he says Eve was “miraculously” created. Since miracles happen instantaneously, Pope Leo is saying Eve was created instantaneously, on the sixth day. It is thus logical to assume Pope Leo believed Adam was also created instantaneously, like Eve, on the sixth day. There is no methodological distinction between Adam and Eve, and nothing to suggest that their creation was from an evolutionary process that took millions of years. Pope Leo’s encyclical is in line with the infallible teachings of Lateran Council IV, Vatican Council I, and the early Church Fathers. Moreover, Pope Leo XIII issued this teaching only about 20 years after Darwin’s theory of evolution came on the scene.
1950 – On August 12, Pope Pius XII issues the encyclical Humani Generis which addressed false opinions that were threatening to undermine Catholic doctrine. The pope, in echoing St. Augustine and Providentissimus Deus, declared that the modern exegete’s desire to depart from a literal interpretation of Scripture in favor of a non-literal interpretation was foreign to Catholic teaching: “Further, according to their fictitious opinions, the literal sense of Holy Scripture and its explanation, carefully worked out under the Church’s vigilance by so many great exegetes, should yield now to a new exegesis, which they are pleased to call symbolic or spiritual” (no. 23). “Everyone sees how foreign all this is to the principles and norms of interpretation rightly fixed by our predecessors of happy memory, Leo XIII in his Encyclical Providentissimus Deus, and Benedict XV in the Encyclical Spiritus Paraclitus, as also by Ourselves in the Encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu” (no. 24). The pope also broached the theory of evolution with caution by stating that the Church “does not forbid research and discussions…with regard to evolution,” but warns that “divine revelation demands the greatest moderation and caution” when so discussing, and says we must ultimately “submit to the judgment of the Church” (no. 36). The pope further condemned “polygenism,” the heretical belief that the human race is not the product of a single set of parents (Adam and Eve), but multiple parents, as evolutionary theory maintains.
 
JamesG said:
Code:
She also thinks that she can be a prophet.   Are there still prophets in today's world?  I could be wrong, but did Jesus not say that there would be no more prophets after him?
Yes, the gift of prophesy is alive and well, and it will continue until Jesus comes for His church.

Prophesy, though, is mostly not about telling the future, but speaking Gods Truth into the present. We are all called to do this, by our actions, and our words. Some people manifest this at an extrarordinary level.

Num 11:29
“Would that all the LORD’s people were prophets, that the LORD would put his spirit upon them!”

Acts 2:17-18

17’And in the last days it shall be, God declares,
that I will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh,
and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy,
and your young men shall see visions,
and your old men shall dream dreams;
18 yea, and on my menservants and my maidservants in those days
**I will pour out my Spirit; and they shall prophesy. **

Rev 5:9-10
rthy art thou to take the scroll and to open its seals,
for thou wast slain and by thy blood didst ransom men for God
from every tribe and tongue and people and nation,
10 and hast made them a kingdom and priests to our God,
and they shall reign on earth."

1 Peter 2:9

9 But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s own people, that you may declare the wonderful deeds of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light.

We are priestly people, a prophetic people, a people who will reign with Him.

We also have a ministerial priesthood, an office of prophet, and those who God has appointed over us to shepherd us. Not everyone is called to serve the Body as a priest, or to function solely as a prophetic voice. Only a few are called to these special ministries and offices.
 
My comment was: “However, I can assure you that the Catholic doctrine of two, real sole parents of the human species has been around for centuries.”
your reply was
Are you affirming that Adam and Eve, as the sole parents of humanity, truly existed in the pre-scientific era?
Granny, I meant that the interpretation of the “Adam and Eve” story as true in a literal sense was common in a prescientific era, not that Adam and Eve literally existed in a prescientific era. Like almost all of my fellow theologians, and all the priests I know, and the bishops I have worked with, I interpret “Adam” and “Eve” as symbolic of humankind, redeemed by Jesus Christ. I suppose there are some (besides yourself and Elizabeth) who interpret Genesis 1-3 literally, but I have not met or worked or worshiped with such.

StAnastasia
 
Granny, I meant that the interpretation of the “Adam and Eve” story as true in a literal sense was common in a prescientific era, not that Adam and Eve literally existed in a prescientific era. Like almost all of my fellow theologians, and all the priests I know, and the bishops I have worked with, I interpret “Adam” and “Eve” as symbolic of humankind, redeemed by Jesus Christ. I suppose there are some (besides yourself and Elizabeth) who interpret Genesis 1-3 literally, but I have not met or worked or worshiped with such.

StAnastasia
The fact that you have not met or worked with persons who espouse the infallible teaching of the Apostles preserved in the Church is an abysmal commentary on the state of catechesis. Theologians, priests, bishops and yourself are not, like the Church, protected by the gift of infallibility.

What Elizabeth and Granny are trying to tell you is that the Source of the teaching is God himself. It is not anyone’s private interpretation of the creation story in Genesis.
 
Granny, I meant that the interpretation of the “Adam and Eve” story as true in a literal sense was common in a prescientific era, not that Adam and Eve literally existed in a prescientific era. Like almost all of my fellow theologians, and all the priests I know, and the bishops I have worked with, I interpret “Adam” and “Eve” as symbolic of humankind, redeemed by Jesus Christ. I suppose there are some (besides yourself and Elizabeth) who interpret Genesis 1-3 literally, but I have not met or worked or worshiped with such.

StAnastasia
Just curious. You stated that you and almost all of your fellow theologians, all priests you know and bishops you worked with interpret Adam and Eve as symbolic of mankind. You also claimed, based on your various advanced studies, that the number of human (or pre-human?) breeding pairs never dropped below 3,000. What is your theory then on when and how ensoulment transpired? A sort of spiritual ‘evolution’ that coincided with the biological/physical evolution of man? Did man ‘evolve’ later to the stage when/where he became the image of God? Or, is ‘man made in the image of God’ also not to be taken literally?

Elizabeth essentially asked the same question earlier with
Do you believe in a kind of spiritual “development,” in which ensoulment was perfected from rudimentary phases of evolution, pre-man, to some definitively spectacular phase – and that’s what the authors of Genesis are knowingly or unknowingly communicating?
,
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top