B
buffalo
Guest
The death throes of dying theories resort to ridicule.
- Status
I
itinerant1
Guest
For anyone interested in the exegetical history of Genesis 1, I highly recommend Genesis 1 Through the Ages by Fr. Stanley L. Jaki.
Fr. Jaki explains the problems with concordist interpretations and shows how Genesis 1 should be read. An historical review of the problems with various types of interpretations reveals that there can be no justification for the biblical literalism so dear to “creationists”.
Fr. Jaki explains the problems with concordist interpretations and shows how Genesis 1 should be read. An historical review of the problems with various types of interpretations reveals that there can be no justification for the biblical literalism so dear to “creationists”.
B
buffalo
Guest
To be fair here is one review of the book:
…
Genesis 1 through the Ages
God created the world out of nothing, i.e. not from something existent beforehand. Genesis 1 describes it in pictures. Father Jaki’s volume *Genesis 1 through the Ages *analysed the two millennia of Genesis exegetics right through (with 674 references!). The distressing outcome was but an incoherent conglomerate of opinions pernicious to Christian faith instead of a useful, consistent interpretation. The last chapter of this book outlined his own explanation to be summarized like this:
Genesis 1 is not a scientific cosmology, not even a myth or legend but most probably a kind of metaphoric biblical exhortation emphasizing that all things were made by God, and they were good, nay, very good; that man has a special position in the universe with the duty of devotion to the Lord of the Cosmos to be manifested in praising Him by the observation of the Sabbath. In accordance with the ancient views of the chosen people the universe is to be conceived as a cosmic tent. By ancient means of rhetorics, parts can be mentioned for the whole (pars pro toto) or the whole characterized by parts (totum per partes). This is how the biblical phrase „heaven and earth” stands for „everything”. Erecting a „tent” needed, of course, conditions such as light created on the first „day” while the two main parts (heaven and earth i.e. the roof and the floor) (opus divisionis) came into being on the second and third „days” (opus divisionis) (plants were sprouting from the earth), all was ornated with the celestial bodies as well as fish and birds on the fourth and fifth „days” (opus ornatus). Terrestrial animals appeared on the sixth „day”and from them Adam emerged by direct creation, and an equal status was given to Eve. Finally, God rested from all his work on the seventh „day”. He is rightly to be praised by the Universe as Psalm 148 is resounding in a similar sequence.
and this is interesting…
Today’s physics is claiming to trace the history of the cosmos back to 10-43 seconds after the Big Bang. Since Catholic theology regards creation as the production of things in time and out of nothing, and the nothing can not be measured, the problem of creation goes beyond the competence of physics. For similar reasons, natural science cannot discuss the nature of matter and gravity, electromagnetism and life, purpose and universals, not even of God’s existence because all these realities are immeasurable (non-metric). Since science is competent in metric aspects and religion in non-metric ones, they cannot get into conflict except when their representatives overstride competence, i. e. when Nobel Prize winner scientists declare an opinion about matters of religion and theologians look for support in cosmology.
C
Cristian_B
Guest
So you’re some kind of Christian evolutionist?
P
Philipp
Guest
I thought I was just joking. Perhaps you take yourself too serious. I’ll get back with many more challenges for you to ponder over when i return from a brithday party for our eldest daughter today about 50 lmiles from home.
These evidences against long ages include lab research in a major lab in Italy that shows HOW an isotope of Thorium can become 10,000 time older by simply ultrasonic agitation in water simulating what might be considered cavitataion during rapid water flow. I’m also experienced with ultrasonic transducers as I used them in my research as an electrochemist.
What happens when radio isotopes are subjected to ionization? I will show you that with references. I’m sure you wailting with baited breath…
And what about the latest discoveries in field and lab studies in geology and how sediments really form like the Mt. St helens experience?
L
larkin31
Guest
I quoted the Vatican documents above. And in none of them is there a claim that God is not the creator. So I don’t know why your refutation includes that remark. If accepting an old earth and evolutionary principles is NOT doctrine (despite the Vatican documents that have been quoted for you here), then simply quote the Vatican documents that state the contrary. This should be pretty easy for you, no?
L
larkin31
Guest
indeed
I
itinerant1
Guest
Proudly so!
I accept a particular theistic version of biological evolution, one which is consistent with the Faith and scientific facts.
C
Cristian_B
Guest
And how far does your evolutionist view go? God creating a cell and leaving it up to mutate and Him waiting a couple of millions of years for man to evolve? Or not so far?
R
rossum
Guest
The news article refers to ring counts. The original scientific paper on which the news article was based is: A Pleistocene Clone of Palmer’s Oak Persisting in Southern California.
Read it and then come back with any problems you still have.
rossum
R
rossum
Guest
Happy birthday to her.
Reference please.
Reference please.
Some sediments do form very rapidly; this has been known since at least the eruption of Vesuvius in 79 CE. Other sediments form slowly.And what about the latest discoveries in field and lab studies in geology and how sediments really form like the Mt. St helens experience?
rossum
G
grannymh
Guest
Believe me, you are not alone on these threads. There are way too many Catholics who do not understand the difference between statements/documents and the Catholic Deposit of Faith which is the source of Catholic doctrines. In one way, this is understandable because individual statements/documents can contain Catholic doctrine regarding faith and morals. Catholic doctrine does not make scientific decisions.I quoted the Vatican documents above. And in none of them is there a claim that God is not the creator. So I don’t know why your refutation includes that remark. If accepting an old earth and evolutionary principles is NOT doctrine (despite the Vatican documents that have been quoted for you here), then simply quote the Vatican documents that state the contrary. This should be pretty easy for you, no?
The individual sections you quoted refer to the material and physical world. I was not refuting them. I was indicating their place [scientific realm] in the scheme of things.
To find out the Catholic doctrine regarding something in the scheme of the material and physical world, specifically that of the age of the earth and evolutionary principles, one needs to shift to the supernatural which is beyond the natural material and physical world. Catholics believe as a doctrine that God, the supernatural Creator, created the natural material and physical world.
All that one does when pitting one statement by a Church official regarding scientific matters against another statement by a Church official regarding the same scientific matter is to carry on an acceptable discussion about scientific matters which are outside, and I repeat outside of Catholicism’s Deposit of Faith.
In other words, there is no real reason to have a Catholic doctrine for or against any age of the earth theory. BUT, and this is where Catholics and others get confused, when any theory denies a basic Catholic doctrine, then the Church steps in and repeats its teaching because now a matter of Faith is being challenged. For Catholics, Divine Revelation trumps.
If and when the age of the earth is being debated scientifically, the underlying principle should be that God created the earth regardless of who wins the discussion. But, when someone claims that some theory regarding some section of science is a demonstration that God does not exist – that is when the *real *doctrines of Catholicism appear.
Blessings,
granny
Spring is a message of hope sent by the Creator.
B
buffalo
Guest
13,000 years old is OK with me. The geneaologies put Adam around 12000 years ago. Seems to be within the margin of error.
L
larkin31
Guest
B
buffalo
Guest
You know I meant the dating.
L
larkin31
Guest
Are you stating this as doctrine from the Vatican? The two popes quoted above make more specific statements than your general points here. Are you suggesting that the Church has NO position on the issue of materialistic investigation of the age of the earth? Benedict clearly states one in his document, and John Paul II clearly states one in his document. Are you claiming that these statements don’t matter?
L
larkin31
Guest
ed, you never replied to my post quoting recent Catholic popes after you accused evolutionists of trying to “convert” you. Will you reply now?
G
grannymh
Guest
So far the doctrine which I have stated is that God is the Creator. I have mentioned the Catholic Deposit of Faith which is the source for Catholic doctrines.
Of course statements by educated individuals do matter. Why do you question that?
Of course individuals (who are also members of the Catholic Church) do take positions on anything from chicken soup to the issue you mentioned – materialistic investigation of the age of the earth. Why do you question that?
Please keep in mind that membership in the Catholic Church does not take away free speech regarding matters of science in the material and physical world.
Blessings,
granny
These two websites contain TV ads about Catholicism. The first is from one of the Dioceses which is using them. The second is general information.
L
larkin31
Guest
Because your tone is dismissive, and because the individuals quoted are the last two popes. They aren’t just ANYBODYs; there are the last two leaders of the infallible RCC doctrine and last two in the apostolic succession.
B
buffalo
Guest
You do understand infallibility as it applies to Popes, I hope.
- Status