D
drpmjhess
Guest
The article is useless, as one would expect from the Kolbe Center. It’s a pity the name of that saintly man has become associated with the work of lunatics.
- Status
T
Tah_Dah_Man
Guest
Are we to take the Bible and interpret it accoding to the laws of interpretation?
Or are we (or, the Holy See) to interpret the Scriptures in the light of “the science of the times?” (Current dating methods, etc.)
Do we wanna have our cake, and eat it too?
Pontifical Biblical Commission
ewtn.com/library/CURIA/PBCINTER.HTM
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
“Scripture alone makes a person complete, capable, and proficient.”
“Scripture furnishes all that one must know to be saved and to grow in grace.”
home.earthlink.net/~ronrhodes/Interpretation.html
B. New Methods of Literary Analysis
“No scientific method for the study of the Bible is fully adequate to comprehend the biblical texts in all their richness. For all its overall validity, the historical-critical method cannot claim to be totally sufficient in this respect. It necessarily has to leave aside many aspects of the writings which it studies. It is not surprising, then, that at the present time other methods and approaches are proposed which serve to explore more profoundly other aspects worthy of attention.”
From:
Pontifical Biblical Commission
ewtn.com/library/CURIA/PBCINTER.HTM
Correctly Handling the Word of Truth
Jesus said His words lead to eternal life (John 6:63). But for us to receive eternal life through His words, they must be taken as He intended them to be taken.
A cultic reinterpretation of Scripture that yields another Jesus and another gospel (2 Corinthians 11:3-4; Galatians 1:6-9) will yield only eternal death (Revelation 20:11-15).
From:
Rightly Interpreting the Bible
home.earthlink.net/~ronrhodes/Interpretation.html
Or are we (or, the Holy See) to interpret the Scriptures in the light of “the science of the times?” (Current dating methods, etc.)
Do we wanna have our cake, and eat it too?
Pontifical Biblical Commission
ewtn.com/library/CURIA/PBCINTER.HTM
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
“Scripture alone makes a person complete, capable, and proficient.”
“Scripture furnishes all that one must know to be saved and to grow in grace.”
home.earthlink.net/~ronrhodes/Interpretation.html
B. New Methods of Literary Analysis
“No scientific method for the study of the Bible is fully adequate to comprehend the biblical texts in all their richness. For all its overall validity, the historical-critical method cannot claim to be totally sufficient in this respect. It necessarily has to leave aside many aspects of the writings which it studies. It is not surprising, then, that at the present time other methods and approaches are proposed which serve to explore more profoundly other aspects worthy of attention.”
From:
Pontifical Biblical Commission
ewtn.com/library/CURIA/PBCINTER.HTM
Correctly Handling the Word of Truth
Jesus said His words lead to eternal life (John 6:63). But for us to receive eternal life through His words, they must be taken as He intended them to be taken.
A cultic reinterpretation of Scripture that yields another Jesus and another gospel (2 Corinthians 11:3-4; Galatians 1:6-9) will yield only eternal death (Revelation 20:11-15).
From:
Rightly Interpreting the Bible
home.earthlink.net/~ronrhodes/Interpretation.html
N
Neil_Anthony
Guest
You have to admit they’re right about one thing: That evolution isn’t science. After all, you can’t prove any of their claims using experiments.
But… I guess you’re rather just call our esteemed ***real ***scientist Forum member, Peter Wilders, a lunatic and not address the issue at all.
H
hecd2
Guest
H
hecd2
Guest
Aha. Another person who can see clearly that these popes are in error and heresy
That’s easy. Certainly not to someone who claims that a global flood occurred 4,500 years ago. I’ll stick with the evidence thank you - the KT iridium anomaly and the total lack of evidence for a global flood at any time,. never mind as recently as 4500 years ago…
Alec
evolutionpages.com
P
Peter_Wilders
Guest
Neil_Anthony posts:
**
Paleohydraulic analyses in the field and experiments in the laboratory are continuing in Russia. See:
www.sedimentology.fr
Incidentally I am well informed on the research but not a scientist.
Peter
**
]**
Paleohydraulic analyses in the field and experiments in the laboratory are continuing in Russia. See:
www.sedimentology.fr
Incidentally I am well informed on the research but not a scientist.
Peter
P
Peter_Wilders
Guest
Zian posts:
**
Peter
**
] **
Cardinal Ratzinger before becoming Pope watched the entire video. Afterwards, he said he found it interesting and had no objection to it being distributed. You should have seen it through to the end before judging it, as did the Cardinal.
Peter
T
The_Barbarian
Guest
Peter:
I am a scientist, and I can attest that you exhibit very little sign of understanding the evidence for, or remaining problems in, biology or geology.
J
Jerry-Jet
Guest
The Barbarian: What would be your best guess as to when the fall of Adam and Eve happened?
I believe Adam and Eve were the first Homo Sapiens so sometime soon after they were created as the first Homo Saiens is my guess. What do you think of that guess? What would be your best scientific guess?
And if science cannot make a guess as to something theological such as the Fall of Adam and Eve do you think it is possible for one to use both their scientific mind and their theological mind and come up with a guess?
Is it OK for anyone to ever contemplate the intersection of science and thology?
I believe Adam and Eve were the first Homo Sapiens so sometime soon after they were created as the first Homo Saiens is my guess. What do you think of that guess? What would be your best scientific guess?
And if science cannot make a guess as to something theological such as the Fall of Adam and Eve do you think it is possible for one to use both their scientific mind and their theological mind and come up with a guess?
Is it OK for anyone to ever contemplate the intersection of science and thology?
N
Neil_Anthony
Guest
That’s all well and good, but where are your experiements with running water laying sediment, prooving that the earth is so old and that we descended from apes? I haven’t seen any of the missing links in any scientific document(arie)s.
S
SpiritMeadow
Guest
To “our” knowledge" you and the people who are afraid yet to be known on this mometous issue? I’m rather sorry but you’re credibility never high from the beginning, has now disappeared with your imaginary supporters.
H
hecd2
Guest
See
evolutionpages.com/berthault_critique.htm
that shows that Berthault is a crank whose claims are pure hubris.
Alec
evolutionpages.com/berthault_critique.htm
S
SpiritMeadow
Guest
Yeah Ed’s arguments get worse and worse. By the way, I’ve found the best site imaginable…Its called The Panda’s Thumb. His links are the most outstanding I’ve ever seen on the issue of creationism/ID and evolution. There are I would think well over a 100 different links to every reputable scientific organization in the world. The blog owner apparently is a well-recognized expert as well. You can find him on my blog under “watching the religious right” for a direct link.
T
The_Barbarian
Guest
Have you never opened a geology textbook? These processes are going on around you right now.
The first evidence for that was made clear when Thomas Huxley, showed Owen, from his own evidence that there was no feature of the human brain that was not found in chimpanzee brains and vice versa. Genetics has since shown that we are more closely related to chimpanzees than chimpanzees are related to other apes. And we have even found that the chromosomal differences between man and chimp is a chromosome fusion, with one human chromosome being a copy of two chimp chromosomes, right down to the remains of telemeres at the fusion.
There’s a lot more. Do you want to see more?
“Missing link” is not a scientific term. But there are many transitional fossils. Let’s take skulls as a starting point. What would you consider to be a skull transitional between apes and humans?
Would you agree that if there were no transitionals, then we should be able to definitely divide all fossil ape or human skulls into one group or the other?
Feel free to ignore the request if you already realize that numerous “missing links” exist.
S
SpiritMeadow
Guest
Umm…I’m gonna listen to scientists and the last two popes and the teaching magisterium. Why don’t you try that instead of stubbornly thinking that your opinion is better? Now it might well be that you are correct and the great weight of humanity is dead wrong, but isn’t it worth a fair examination when you are in such a tiny minority?
S
SpiritMeadow
Guest
You’ve given us 3 posts of nice fuzzy things. Care to explain what they have to do with this discussion and what your position is and why?
T
The_Barbarian
Guest
I really have no way of knowing, since it was a supernatural event, and there’s no way to test it. If it happened to H. erectus before we became H. sapiens, would it matter? Since it doesn’t seem to matter to God (otherwise He’d have told us) I don’t worry much about it.
My thinking is that it was an earlier form of Homo. We really didn’t become H. Sapiens until after we split from the common ancestor of us and H. neandertalis, and the Neandertals seem to have had some concept of the spiritual, given burials and occasional artwork.
I just did, but I have no way of testing it.
I think it’s a healthy and useful thing. It is one of my strong interests. The important thing, is not to conflate the two.
N
Neil_Anthony
Guest
The textbooks didn’t give any proof. they just told me what to believe. Like a fundamentalist approach to science.
On the other hand, scientific documentaries like Peter Wilders’ show that the layers were created sideways by current, over a period of hours, not millions of years, and so all the dating is wrong. And the missing links haven’t been found. They’re all missing. Show me one missing link.
S
SpiritMeadow
Guest
Your position is so UNCLEAR I can never figure you out. At various times you appear to be on both sides of the issue. It seems to me you are somewhat convinced but not totally, and I find that odd at best. It seems unlikely that one can actually be in the middle. One either accepts the overwhelming attestation of evidence or one knowingly chooses to deny it in favor of a position one finds more personally satisfying and nonthreatening.
N
Neil_Anthony
Guest
Well I was all against creationism until I saw Peter’s video. Did you watch it? it shows how the layers can be created in just minutes.
- Status