H
humble_in_doubt
Guest
the earth is actually only 5,998 years old (get it right guys … for goodness sake)
- Status
A
avflf
Guest
Vatican II defined rather adequately the Church’s position regarding the God inspired Scriptures thus:
“The Church holds that the 46 books of the OT and the 27 books of the NT are inspired by God. Inspiration means that, in some mysterious way, God is the primary author of those books; by means of His grace He worked through the minds and wills of the sacred authors, moving them to put down in writing those truths He wished to communicate to all mankind”
Pope Leo declared: “It is our obligation in all times to defend the Scriptures against the attacks of those who deny any Revelation or inspiration, who see Scripture as made up of forgeries and stories; who claim that prophecies and predictions were made up after the event, and that miracles are tricks or myths … and some of the men who propose them claim to be Christians, indeed theologians. They diffuse their deadly poison through books, pamphlets, newspapers, addresses, and conversation; and they pervert minds, especially those of the young, to contempt for the Holy Scriptures.”
He stated further : *“It is absolutely wrong and forbidden, to narrow inspiration to certain parts of Holy Scripture or to admit that the sacred writer has erred.” *
According to the above you seem, by your belief on the origins of the Bible and its interpretation, to be in conflict with your own church.
H
humble_in_doubt
Guest
I assume your position is this Pope you cite supported biblical literalism; but the way I see is he only said “all” of scripture is inspired (which could just as easily mean that some parts should be understood figuratively rather than literally).
Inspiration itself doesn’t negate figurative interpretation (logically speaking). Both Augustine and Calvin taught that much of scripture should be understood figuratively, although they both also taught that every word in scripture is divinely inspired (in fact all the great theologians, including Wesley, taught as much).
The CC itself experienced the folly of biblical literalism (just study the Galileo affair, you’ll learn the CC once believed scripture revealed an earth that lies at the center of the universe & is immovable). From those who handle snakes (and endanger themselves and their loved ones) because of one sentence in scripture, to those who deny the FACT that the earth is over 4 billion years old … you just make religion sillier than it already is.
A
avflf
Guest
I accept your interpretation though I find it difficult to reconcile “inspiration” with a liberal interpretation of events as found in Holy Writ, especially if the Bible is presented as unerring because of its Divine authorship. It appears, from the quotes below, that the Church itself takes a dim view of this modern, liberal interpretation of her book.
“Correct interpretation also requires that the reader must keep the divine authorship in mind; he ought not to forget that there is unity in all of Scripture because it has one divine author. So there are no errors in the Bible and any conclusions drawn from Scripture must take into account the whole Tradition of the Church and the analogy of faith, that is, what the Church has always taught.” * From Vatican II on Divine revelation
In Divino Afflante Spiritu Pope Pius XII states:“For some go so far as to pervert the sense of the Vatican Council’s definition that God is the author of Holy Scripture, and they put forward again the opinion, already often condemned, which asserts that immunity from error extends only to those parts of the Bible that treat of God or of moral and religious matters. They even wrongly speak of a human sense of the Scriptures, beneath which a divine sense, which they say is the only infallible meaning, lies hidden. In interpreting Scripture, they will take no account of the analogy of faith and the Tradition of the Church. Thus they judge the doctrine of the Fathers and of the Teaching Church by the norm of Holy Scripture interpreted by the purely human reason of exegetes, instead of explaining Holy Scripture according to the mind of the Church, which Christ Our Lord has appointed guardian and interpreter of the whole deposit of divinely revealed truth.
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”*
In *Spiritus Paraclitus * Pope Benedict “deplored the fact that there were certain children of the Catholic Church, even some clerics, who rejected this teaching. He reminded that to take refuge in “pseudo-historical narratives” or in “kinds of literature,” cannot be reconciled with the perfect truth of God’s word. Those who question the Bible’s inerrancy, he charged, whittle away the trust people have in the Scriptures.” and *“He urged combat against those who deny the supernatural order, and those who through an itching desire for novelty, venture to interpret the sacred books as though they were of purely human origin.” *
Take, for example, the following Biblical accounts that Jesus referred to as being factual: The story of Noah and the Flood and Jonah’s 3 days in the belly of a fish. Are these stories “pseudo-historical narratives”, a interpretative view condemned by Pope Benedict (see above), or are they truly historical accounts? How do you view the Resurrection? Historical truth or, again, only pseudo-historical?
H
humble_in_doubt
Guest
I was just commenting on your statement (from a logical standpoint). I’m personally no longer religious (though I was raised Christian).
The problems with biblical literalism are obvious, we know the earth is over 4 billion years old (it’s not just a theory). So obviously the earth can’t be 6,000 years old, hence the biblical chronology must be viewed figuratively by believers (or you at least have to buy into some sort of “gap theory”).
B
Bradleyc
Guest
The Universe is 13.715 billion years old? are you sure it’s not 13.714 or 13.716 BILLION years old? or could it even be 14.2 bil, 12.5 bil, 11.7 bil… how did they get such an exact number? it’s trully amazing that you all believe that… it takes a lot of faith… how did they come up with that number anyway? is that proven?
T
TruthisBeauty7
Guest
I dont believe in Macro Evolution at all. I don’t believe the Earth is billions upon billions of years old or mankind millions upon millions. If mankind was so old, why is it we only see the first civilization dating only about 5000 years ago or so .To me its complete and utter rubbish. Evolution and old earth THEORIES are losing more and more of there creditablity. I think your going to see the mainstream world moving more towards pantheistic theories about life more and more .
To me Im with the Early Church fathers, who believed God literally made the earth in 6 days. I belive our first parents fell to the tempations of our enemy , yet the story being
expressed in imagery and symbolism. Such as the Fruit, the Devil being a Snake …etc
There is no way Scientists know for certain how old the world is, they are simply misinterpeting the data. The best they can do is make estimates, and to me these estimates are completly false, because they interpet them with a bias atheistic agenda.
To me Im with the Early Church fathers, who believed God literally made the earth in 6 days. I belive our first parents fell to the tempations of our enemy , yet the story being
expressed in imagery and symbolism. Such as the Fruit, the Devil being a Snake …etc
There is no way Scientists know for certain how old the world is, they are simply misinterpeting the data. The best they can do is make estimates, and to me these estimates are completly false, because they interpet them with a bias atheistic agenda.
K
Kaninchen
Guest
With whom?
And the evidence backing this thought about the ‘world’ (which includes the world outside the United States, I presume)?
C
christian1
Guest
Heiscominginthe you said: I suppose that’s also the answer as to why Mary, who was unblemished and pure, could not have been the sacrificial Lamb, also, right?
That’s how the fall occurred and continues to.
That’s how the fall occurred and continues to.
H
humble_in_doubt
Guest
ummmm … huh? Yeah it takes a lotta faith to believe in proven science, and a lot less to believe in angels, demons, an invisible god splitting the red sea, turning sticks into snakes, rivers into blood, raising the dead back to life, making the blind see, the crippled walk, etc. etc.
Golly … and here I’ve been wasting my time relying on science
T
TruthisBeauty7
Guest
what atheist has made history …I cant think of any but maybe stalin?
All the great scientists, all the great war hero’s , all the great inventors,all the great composers, all the great artists, all the great Saints that have helped the needy, the sick, the homeless, the hungry, all the great presidents were all Theists and mostly all christians.
you need to change your qoute atheist’s are basically only known for all the people they killed under there communist regime’s nothing more .
All the great scientists, all the great war hero’s , all the great inventors,all the great composers, all the great artists, all the great Saints that have helped the needy, the sick, the homeless, the hungry, all the great presidents were all Theists and mostly all christians.
you need to change your qoute atheist’s are basically only known for all the people they killed under there communist regime’s nothing more .
M
matahari
Guest
ummmm … huh? Yeah it takes a lotta faith to believe in proven science, and a lot less to believe in angels, demons, an invisible god splitting the red sea, turning sticks into snakes, rivers into blood, raising the dead back to life, making the blind see, the crippled walk, etc. etc.
Golly … and here I’ve been wasting my time relying on science
Science is also a gift from God to help us understand and appreciate His wonderful Creation. But please don't waste your time relying on science. Only God can save your soul............
R
rossum
Guest
It might be.
It could be. All scientific measurements come with error ranges. The answer is 95% likely to lie within the stated range. According to UCLA the age is 13.7 +/- 0.2 Gyr, see here.
Probably not, those numbers are outside the measured uncertainty so are more than 95% likely to be incorrect. For the methods used read the UCLA reference I gave in the first paragraph.
No. We have the measurements and if we want to we can repeat the measurements to check them ourselves.
Read the reference; the information is there if you are interested.
I suggest that you read Isaac Asimov’s essay The Relativity of Wrong for some very good background on how science reaches its conclusions. The age of the universe is proven beyone reasonable doubt. It is not proven beyond unreasonable doubt, and probably never can be.
rossum
H
heiscominginthe
Guest
The devil who is the author of the theory of evolution believes in God. So what.
Even if the pope does believe this, look at science alone. They use to say this or that was billions of years old and today say maybe few hundred thousand years old. Science is getting more advanced and will eventually discover the fact that the Word of God is true and the earth is merely around 6000 years old.
I pray that the CC and the pope grow in faith and come to the same conclusion.
S
StAnastasia
Guest
The Church Fathers were ignorant of what we now know from science. They accepted the truth an ancient Mesopotamian cosmogonic myth.
B
buffalo
Guest
So you expect the dogma of Adam and Eve and Eve coming from Adam to be reversed?
H
heiscominginthe
Guest
Amen. It is God who has revealed this to you. Well done thou good and faithful servant. Continue to walk the walk of faith.
H
heiscominginthe
Guest
You are saying the early church Fathers had no faith, did not walk in the spirit, and did not receive understanding by way of that spirit of truth known as the Holy Spirit?
T
TruthisBeauty7
Guest
The story of ADAM and Eve is hardly a myth, its the true story of are origins expressed in some parts in symbolism. Such as the Fruit, the Devil as a snake. But the story is true.
The problem with the world today is there to wise and to prudent for there own Good, as Christ says I have hidden these things from the wise and prudent , and revealed them unto babes.
Remember to enter the kingdom you must be like a child. Does it mean you have to check your reasoning at the door …No, but it does mean we have to be ready to accept the unbelievable , just like a child does.
Evolution is still a theory remember as well. There is no Missing Link. It will never be found …book it. You see to many people are too concerned about looking intelligent and important , rather then humble and repentent. God resists the proud but gives grace to the humble.
God bless
The problem with the world today is there to wise and to prudent for there own Good, as Christ says I have hidden these things from the wise and prudent , and revealed them unto babes.
Remember to enter the kingdom you must be like a child. Does it mean you have to check your reasoning at the door …No, but it does mean we have to be ready to accept the unbelievable , just like a child does.
Evolution is still a theory remember as well. There is no Missing Link. It will never be found …book it. You see to many people are too concerned about looking intelligent and important , rather then humble and repentent. God resists the proud but gives grace to the humble.
God bless
S
StAnastasia
Guest
Right – that’s how science works. Gravity is still a theory. Cellular and atomic structure are theories. Plate tectonics is a theory. They always will be theories.
So what’s your point about science?
- Status