O
- Status
A
AllforJesus
Guest
Greetings from Rome! I am a seminarian studying in Rome and am currently preparing for an exam I have this Friday on “God, the Creator”. I am by no means an expert in this field but I have been reading some of your posts to stay active and would like to share the following points:
- In the Apostles Creed we profess, “I believe in God, Creator of the heavens and the earth…”, NOT, “I believe in God, who created the heavens and the earth in 7 days!”.
- There is an interesting article published by the Pontifical Biblical Comission in 1909 regarding the Historical Character of the First Three Chapters of the Book of Genesis (De charactere historico trium priorum capitum Geneseos, June 30, 1909 - [AAS 1 (1909) 567-569]). Unfortunately I don’t have the English translation but I know it’s out there…
- The Catechism refers to Creation as a “mystery” (cfr. CCC 279 and following), just like many other things that we believe in which, to the sugrin of fundamentalists, are not explicitly stated in the bible but nevertheless we hold dear. As a Catholic I don’t think this poses a serious problem… The word “mystery” is not the same as “it doesn’t exist” or “we just don’t understand” – rather, it means that it IS a reality, but it surpasses the limits of our reason. I think it’s perfectly normal that we, creatures, don’t perfectly understand everything that God does. On the other hand, this doesn’t mean that I think that we should automatically give in when we don’t understand something; moreover, it is okay to investigate scientifically, as long as in the end we holdfast to Church teaching. St Thomas Aquinas is a model of this – he said that you cannot explain that creation took place in time, and yet he believed it through faith. Some certainly will disagree, but I call that sincere humilty. Fides quarens intellectum (Faith searches understanding)… not the other way around.
- Creation is the foundation of salvation. In other words, even way back in Genesis God was already thinking about His Son’s debut upon the earth. The creation story only makes sense in light of Christ (Rom 8: 18-23).
- Finally, for those of you struggling to “understand” Genesis 1, it might be enlightening to read a biblical commentary of the prologue of the Gospel of John (i.e. 1st chapter: “In the beginning was the word…”). Scholars have made it clear that the litterary structure of the prologue was set up according to a specific theological intent on behalf of the gospel writer (inspired by God by the way…). The Church’s teaching on Creation goes hand-in-hand with her teaching on Salvation.
J
Joe_Kelley
Guest
A
AllforJesus
Guest
By the way, if you don’t find the article, here is a brief synthesis in 5 points:
a. First 3 chapters refer to real events
b. Necessary to admit the historicity of divine creation of world and man (since they are foundations of faith)
c. Not necessary to interpret words and phrases literally.
d. Not necessary to understand every word in rigorously scientific sense (proprietas scientifici sermonis)
e. Not necessary to understand “day” as 24 hours, but as a period of time
I
inthecloud
Guest
Sad but true. They are eroding the separation between Church and State in education, the area most dear to free thinkers.
For those who can read Spanish, I recomend Genesis, El Origen de la Diferencia (Genesis, the origin of diference) by Daniel Colandenco, a Argentinian Jewish Scholar.
For me, Genesis does make much more sense when read in a non literal fashion. Coladenco uses the Talmud, the Mishnah, the Kabbalah, modern Biblical scholarship and even some existencialist and extructuralist philosophy to point out Genesis message. And it makes sense, a lot of it.
Just do not read the book in a literalist fashion.
I think that she Church should stop being scared of fundies and push for a teology based in a non literal reading of Genesis 1 to 11, the primeval tale who according to most modern scholars was added much latter to the Torah that the Patriachal history starting in Genesis 12.
A theology that uses all the scientific advances in Bible studies to put Genesis message for today’s world.
Rejecting cosmology, biology, geology, linguistics and history for a literalist reading of Genesis is a suicidal dead end alley. Let the fundangelicals go there. Not the CC.
X
Xpat
Guest
Macro-Evolution is the most absurd ideology forced down the throats of man in recent times. The evidence, which evolutionist ignore, point to a literal interpretation of Genesis 1-11. Not to mention that Church tradition favors a leteral interpretation as well. Catholics should not be ashamed or embarassed to accept God’s word as is. Inspired by the Holy Spirit and error free.
I
inthecloud
Guest
Unless you believe Doctor Dino Hovind or Ken Hamm the evidence points to a Old Earth, a Old Universe and gradual evolution of life.
Just ask John Henry Newman.
X
Xpat
Guest
No the evidence doesn’t point to an old earth and the gradual evolution of life. Just the opposite.
Go to
catholicintl.com/epologetics/articles/science/earth-young-old1.htm
and
catholicintl.com/epologetics/articles/science/genesis.htm
also check out the videos at answersingenesis.org/video/ondemand/
C
cheese_sdc
Guest
I
inthecloud
Guest
I know my science, even if I’m a lawyer by training I spend a lot of time in the Smithonian local research facilities and libraries.
And believe me, some scientists, especially the hispanic ones are catholics. Many things in science only make sense if you accept a Old Earth and evolution as a fact. And they make a lot of science.
Answers in Genesis is just fundamentalist bunk that only make sense if you suspend your common sense.
And please, do not confuse Neo darwinist evolution with the phenomena of evolution. Do not confuse a explanation that can be wrong with the phenomena that is real and measurable.
And believe me, some scientists, especially the hispanic ones are catholics. Many things in science only make sense if you accept a Old Earth and evolution as a fact. And they make a lot of science.
Answers in Genesis is just fundamentalist bunk that only make sense if you suspend your common sense.
And please, do not confuse Neo darwinist evolution with the phenomena of evolution. Do not confuse a explanation that can be wrong with the phenomena that is real and measurable.
C
CreedalCatholic
Guest
May I make a comment.
In my Douay_Rheims, Genesis is referred as the vision of Moses.The interesting part is that both Revelation and Genesis seem to be visions. Now, the story of creation is actually a sensible order in which things are created in light of Divine Revelation. The fact that day and night (I think it is the language to describe the existence of time.) are made on the first day. To look at this in a simple scientific observation (I’m not a scientists. Yet, this does seem valid), take a look at an atom. The electron, neutron, and proton have a particular timing and charateristic in time. That is, the timing is similar to that of the gears of a clock. Each atomical part revolves and particulary follows some sort of timing. Isn’t it strange that light and all scientifically quantitative observance is discovered in time? On the other hand, isn’t it amazing how the Divinely revleaed story of creation is given by He Who can see all things outside of time? There is contextual identity in the crisis between creationism and scientism. For, it is the ‘ism’ that is the problem.
In my Douay_Rheims, Genesis is referred as the vision of Moses.The interesting part is that both Revelation and Genesis seem to be visions. Now, the story of creation is actually a sensible order in which things are created in light of Divine Revelation. The fact that day and night (I think it is the language to describe the existence of time.) are made on the first day. To look at this in a simple scientific observation (I’m not a scientists. Yet, this does seem valid), take a look at an atom. The electron, neutron, and proton have a particular timing and charateristic in time. That is, the timing is similar to that of the gears of a clock. Each atomical part revolves and particulary follows some sort of timing. Isn’t it strange that light and all scientifically quantitative observance is discovered in time? On the other hand, isn’t it amazing how the Divinely revleaed story of creation is given by He Who can see all things outside of time? There is contextual identity in the crisis between creationism and scientism. For, it is the ‘ism’ that is the problem.
X
Xpat
Guest
I’m guessing you didn’t watch any of the videos nor read any of the articles I linked to.
The evolutionists theory of molecules to man (macroevolution) requires super human faith since it’s impossible for non-life to evolve into life which is what evolutionist believe. If you choose to ingnore facts presented because they come from an organization that ‘is just fundamentalist bunk’ then try this one.
kolbecenter.org/
I
itinerant1
Guest
There is nothing that I am aware of in traditional Christian philosophy that says it is impossible for non-life to evolve into life. I usually present a philosophical hypothesis of the conditions that account for the possibility of this step as a precursor to biological evolution. This explanation is based on the philosophical principles of St. Thomas Aquinas and asserts nothing contrary to Thomistic philosophy (or theology).
All that is really needed, then, of the natural sciences, is to explain what the physical conditions are required for life to evolve from non-living matter; and also show that these required physical conditions actually or very likely existed sometime in Earth’s distant past.
Also, I am not familiar with the Kolbe Center, but I have been told the good folks there are fundamentalists or Biblical literalists. Is this true?
I
itinerant1
Guest
Revelation and Genesis are not both visions. Genesis reveals a very different form than that of recorded vision. The book of Genesis is composed of multiple Hebrew traditions woven together. For example, there are two different accounts of the creation of man.
The creation account in Genesis 1 is not logically ordered in such a way that one can reasonably assert that what is being taught is a literal or direct creation in six days. The author had a reason for dividing and ordering creation as he did in a six-day arrangement, but his reason was not a scientific one. Details of the arrangement show the fact that God created all that exists was revealed to the inspired writer, but not the scientific or specific details of His creation.
What limited knowledge that was revealed to the author comprised a significant advance over the beliefs of other ancient Near Eastern tribes. The Hebrews now had their own creation account, one that is theologically true.
St. Thomas Aquinas advised on how Genesis 1 should be read when he said that a direct creation in six days is favored by a superficial reading of Scripture.
Long before St. Thomas Aquinas’ day, St. Augustine made important observation on Genesis 1 and how Scriptures should and should not be interpreted.
It is most intructive to understand St. Augustine, but to briefly present just a few of his insights requires a separate post, which I will proceed to do.
I
itinerant1
Guest
The Kolbe Center and Fr. Warkulwiz
I answered my own question above by jumping over to the Kolbe Center web site. It takes about 30 seconds on that site to see that the book Kolbe Center is promoting, “The Doctrines of Genesis 1-11”, by Fr. Victor Warkulwiz, must be a fundamentalist’s *tour de *force in poor reasoning and eisegesis, rather than exigesis. So sad!
The first review of Fr. Warkulwiz’s book says, “He clearly explains the science and exposes the pseudo-science relied on to support “big bang” and “macro evolutionary” theories, revealing the power and appeal of principles such as “intelligent design,” and “irreducible complexity” to refute claims for a purposeless cosmos.”
Of course, I haven’t read the book, but it appears safe to assume that that Fr. Warkulwiz equates the “Big Bang” with “puposeless universe”. This equation is a fallacy because there is not a single theory or hypothesis of Big Bang. There is more than one theory of Big Bang, and puposelessness is not implied by every theory.
First of all, purpose in nature is not within the province of the natural sciences to discuss. It is a subject for philosophy and theology. I do not know if Fr. Warkulwiz understands this fact about the natural sciences.
Second, Hawking’s theory of Big Bang, for instance, goes beyond science when he says that his particular theory leaves no room for God. Hawking’s theory is an example of one that excludes purpose in the universe. Hawking has gone beyond the proper scope and limitations of natural science. And if Hawking thinks his theory dispoves the existence of God, in the final analysis, we will see that his theory is nonsensical. One does not need to be a genius like Hawking to see that his genius is misguided.
A strictly scientific Big Bang theory will not conflict with the truth of purpose or goal directed activity in the universe. Neither will it conflict with the truth of God’s existence.
So, these are reasons some why it is fallacious and misleading to equate the Big Bang with a purposeless universe as it seems that Fr. Warkulwiz does.
Big Bang does conflict with a strictly literal reading of Genesis 1. However, there is nothing in the theory of Big Bang that conflicts with traditional Christian philosophy. The best explanation of this fact I have found on the internet is one by Professor William E. Carroll, called Aquinas and the Big Bang.
Professor Carroll’s article should be sufficient refutation of anything Fr. Warkulwiz has to say on the subject.
Any appeal to “intelligent design”, such as is made by Fr. Warkulwiz, is bound to be problematic. I.D. is not science. I.D. discusses science, but deals with matters that are philosophical, i.e. design. This would fine in itself, except for the fact that I.D. is bad philosophy. I.D. confuses science and philosophy. The promoters of I.D. are not professionally trained philosophers. They make the critical error of conflating primary and secondary causes. The import of this error is to make I.D. logically and philosophical unacceptable.
Father Edward Oakes discusses this problem in a ZENIT interview: Evolution in the Eyes of the Church (Part 2)
Another useful interview concerning evolution and creation is one with Father Rafael Pascual: Magisterium on Creation and Evolution
I will be moving on to my next post, where I will show what St. Augustine would say about all of this hoopla. Fr. Warkulwiz presents his interpretations of the Church Fathers, including St. Augustine. One cannot say too much about “The Doctrines of Genesis 1-11”, without having first read it, but after you read my next post on St. Augustine, ask yourself whether Fr. Warkulwiz may be misinterpreting the Church Fathers.
I
itinerant1
Guest
**St. Augustine and ****Genesis: **Augustine has two works on Genesis. The early work was written in opposition to the Manichees. The later work is,“De Genesi ad Literam”, or [The Literal Meaning of Genesis](http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/ 0809103265/philosophynot-20/). Augustine is noted for allegorical and figurative interpretations of Scripture. Yet, for years, he labored at a literal interpretation of the first 3 chapters of Genesis.
Augustine advances tentative interpretations of particular passages in Genesis 1 using the astronomical knowledge of the day. He also says nobody should use his interpretation of Scripture to argue against secular science. This is where we see Augustine would seriously object to modern Biblical literalists use of Genesis to argue against modern science. Augustine says,
"It often happens that even a non-Christian knows a thing or two about the earth, the sky, the various elements of the world, about the movement and revolution of the stars and even their size and distance, about the nature of animals, shrubs, rocks, and the like, and maintains this knowledge with sure reason and the experience. It is offensive and ruinous, something to be avoided at all cost, for a nonbeliever to hear a Christian talking about these things as though with Christian writings as his source, and yet so nonsensically and with such obvious error that the nonbeliever can hardly keep from laughing.
"The trouble is not so much that the erring fellow is laughed at but that our authors are believed by outsiders to have held those same opinions and so are despised and rejected as untutored men, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil…How are they going to believe our books concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven when they think they are filled with fallacious writing about things which they know from experience or sure calculation?
"There is no telling how much harm these rash and presumptuous people bring upon their more prudent brethren when they begin to be caught and argued down by those who are not bound by the authority of our Scriptures, and when they then try to defend their flippant, rash, and obviously erroneously statements by quoting a shower of words from those same Sacred Scriptures, even citing from memory those passages which they think support their case, ‘without understanding either what they are saying or things about which they make assertions’ (I Tim. 1:7)” (From Bk. I, Ch. 19, trans. by Rev. W. Kramer)
Again, Augustine is speaking in serious tones about the harm done to the Church by those who use Scripture to argue against secular science.
Augustine’s years of studying Genesis lead him to conclude that Genesis 1 is not teaching a direct creation in six days because it is theologically inappropriate to assert a “before and after” with God, so that God is doing some things on one day and other things on the next day, and so on.
Augustine preferred to think of creation as occurring at once. God even created those life forms that emerge over time in the beginning in their seminal causes, or *rationis seminales. *New life forms will emerge as opportunities present themselves.
**Hebrew cosmogony: **Modern Catholic Biblical scholarship has shown, beyond any doubt, that the cosmogony found in the Old Testament is the ancient Hebrew view of a flat earth, resting on pillars or columns, with the Great Abyss and Sheol beneath the earth. Above, there are the Columns of Heaven, a Firmament above the sky or Aerial Heaven, and waters above the Firmament (the Celestial Ocean) that are let down through Floodgates. Above the Celestial Ocean lies the Empyreal Heaven.
Flat earth: Those who take the flat earth cosmogony as something the Bible is teaching, insist the earth is flat. The modern flat-earth movement began in 1865 when Samuel Rowbotham, using the pen name Parallax, published a book in London called "Zeltic Astronomy”, with the intention of protecting faith in Scripture. Parallax argues his evidence that the earth is flat. To view contemporary evidence for a flat earth, visit the website of The Flat Earth Society “De-programming the masses since 1547”.
This site features scientific data and measurements backing up the flat earth claim. However, flat-earth is no longer in vogue, and the chic fundamentalist has narrowed his claim to a six-day creation and a young earth, or a young earth that some say was created to appear old. This maneuver keeps scientific evidence for an old earth in the same box with the six-day creation.
The 70 arguments for a young earth listed by Henry Morris in 1977 are on a par with modern arguments for a flat earth. Belief that the Bible teaches a flat earth, creation in six days, and a young earth are the reasons why fundamentalists oppose modern science. Augustine maintains that such misuse of the Bible causes harm the Church.
What the Bible "teaches”: Not every thing an author says is what he is "teaching”. The inspired author’s message, that which is infallible, does not include every detail he used to convey the Divine message. Fundamentalists typically disagree with this understanding of inspiration.
Augustine advances tentative interpretations of particular passages in Genesis 1 using the astronomical knowledge of the day. He also says nobody should use his interpretation of Scripture to argue against secular science. This is where we see Augustine would seriously object to modern Biblical literalists use of Genesis to argue against modern science. Augustine says,
"It often happens that even a non-Christian knows a thing or two about the earth, the sky, the various elements of the world, about the movement and revolution of the stars and even their size and distance, about the nature of animals, shrubs, rocks, and the like, and maintains this knowledge with sure reason and the experience. It is offensive and ruinous, something to be avoided at all cost, for a nonbeliever to hear a Christian talking about these things as though with Christian writings as his source, and yet so nonsensically and with such obvious error that the nonbeliever can hardly keep from laughing.
"The trouble is not so much that the erring fellow is laughed at but that our authors are believed by outsiders to have held those same opinions and so are despised and rejected as untutored men, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil…How are they going to believe our books concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven when they think they are filled with fallacious writing about things which they know from experience or sure calculation?
"There is no telling how much harm these rash and presumptuous people bring upon their more prudent brethren when they begin to be caught and argued down by those who are not bound by the authority of our Scriptures, and when they then try to defend their flippant, rash, and obviously erroneously statements by quoting a shower of words from those same Sacred Scriptures, even citing from memory those passages which they think support their case, ‘without understanding either what they are saying or things about which they make assertions’ (I Tim. 1:7)” (From Bk. I, Ch. 19, trans. by Rev. W. Kramer)
Again, Augustine is speaking in serious tones about the harm done to the Church by those who use Scripture to argue against secular science.
Augustine’s years of studying Genesis lead him to conclude that Genesis 1 is not teaching a direct creation in six days because it is theologically inappropriate to assert a “before and after” with God, so that God is doing some things on one day and other things on the next day, and so on.
Augustine preferred to think of creation as occurring at once. God even created those life forms that emerge over time in the beginning in their seminal causes, or *rationis seminales. *New life forms will emerge as opportunities present themselves.
**Hebrew cosmogony: **Modern Catholic Biblical scholarship has shown, beyond any doubt, that the cosmogony found in the Old Testament is the ancient Hebrew view of a flat earth, resting on pillars or columns, with the Great Abyss and Sheol beneath the earth. Above, there are the Columns of Heaven, a Firmament above the sky or Aerial Heaven, and waters above the Firmament (the Celestial Ocean) that are let down through Floodgates. Above the Celestial Ocean lies the Empyreal Heaven.
Flat earth: Those who take the flat earth cosmogony as something the Bible is teaching, insist the earth is flat. The modern flat-earth movement began in 1865 when Samuel Rowbotham, using the pen name Parallax, published a book in London called "Zeltic Astronomy”, with the intention of protecting faith in Scripture. Parallax argues his evidence that the earth is flat. To view contemporary evidence for a flat earth, visit the website of The Flat Earth Society “De-programming the masses since 1547”.
This site features scientific data and measurements backing up the flat earth claim. However, flat-earth is no longer in vogue, and the chic fundamentalist has narrowed his claim to a six-day creation and a young earth, or a young earth that some say was created to appear old. This maneuver keeps scientific evidence for an old earth in the same box with the six-day creation.
The 70 arguments for a young earth listed by Henry Morris in 1977 are on a par with modern arguments for a flat earth. Belief that the Bible teaches a flat earth, creation in six days, and a young earth are the reasons why fundamentalists oppose modern science. Augustine maintains that such misuse of the Bible causes harm the Church.
What the Bible "teaches”: Not every thing an author says is what he is "teaching”. The inspired author’s message, that which is infallible, does not include every detail he used to convey the Divine message. Fundamentalists typically disagree with this understanding of inspiration.
C
CreedalCatholic
Guest
I’m not sure if my statement was understood. Yet, thank you for listing those resources and giving me the context that the saints understood.
My point was that day and night is time. That, the first day (I’m not interpreting a 24-hour period) of creation is the creation of time. Morning and evening presents time.
Dr. Scott Hahn asked the question about what God did before He created. The answer was nothing. For, God didn’t have time. God created time, in time, and entered into time (God entered into His own creation.)
So, the expression is the purpose of the story of creation and how things are quantified in time (the observation in science.)
My problem, in some respects, is the identity in which people tend to forget. That is, nothing is impossible for God. God could have done all creation in 7 actual days with 24-hours each day. A 1000 years is a day to God (I’m not implying a literal interpretation.) The point is that quantitative observation in science pertains to things in time. Things outside of time are in Divine Revelation. Yet, we are finite and understand through quantification. The author of Genesis (Just like the author of Revelation) spoke in a language that could be understood in quantification (i.e. Seven days.) So, the author mediated (Just like the author of Revelation) between him and God.
Here’s a question (I admit I haven’t read the resources yet):
How do we know that Moses didn’t write Genesis while he was fasting for 40 days? I’m not saying I know for sure. Yet, I’m saying it is possible.
Although there isn’t anything suggested in the Old Testament, there are still books (one of the authors of the Gospels [Most likely St. John the Apostle] explained that there isn’t every written account of Christ. ) not in the Old Testament (Although I cannot name them, there are some references to other books.)
I
itinerant1
Guest
To say that “God created time” may not be an accurate expression. What is the meaning of “time”? If we say time is the numbering or measuring of change, then time exists whenever there is change, because, in principle, the change can be numbered or measured. Hence, time began at the instant changeable or contingent being was created.
Hypothetically, if everything in the unviverse temporarily stopped changing, in an absolute sense, then it seems time will have stopped. In this situation, the interruption of time was temporary: change resumes. But we can’t even ask how long time was stopped. There is just a “before” time stopped and an “after” time stopped.
Now, I see no reason to interpret the terms “day” and “night” in Genesis 1 in any other sense than what is common to Hebrew understanding. To suggest the usage of the terms is in some other sense would be out of context with the rest of the language of Genesis 1.
For example, we take every other term in that chapter to be according to the common usage of the period and culture. These words include *heavens, earth, light, darkness, waters, dry land, morning, food, creatures, *and so on. They have common denotation. The terms vault of heaven, waters above the vault, and waters below the vault all denote aspects of the cosmos as understood by primitive Hebrew cosmogony. Expressions such as formless void, trackless waste and emptiness, and darkness over the deep, because of their negative denotation, are an attempt to express to a simple people, the almost inexpressible idea of creatio ex nihil.
So I ask, where in the context of Genesis 1 do we find evidence that “day” and “night” are not intended in their literal sense, but in some other sense, or, that they are intended in more than one sense?
Some people take the phrase from II Peter #:3 “that with the Lord, ‘a day’ can mean a thousand years, and a thousand years is like a day”, and use it to interpret the meaning of “day” in Genesis 1. This does not appear to be a legitimate use of that verse. The expression is intended to mean God’s existence, unlike the life of impatient man, is timeless or radically different, and so God judges things very differently than man judges.
Peter is borrowing from Psalm 90, which is about the human condition. Verse 4 says, “To you; a thousand years are a single day, a yesterday now over, an hour of the night.”
To take a phrase that is attempting to express a radical difference in God’s existence, i.e. such as being outside of time, and apply it to the word “day”, which denotes a period of time from sunrise to sunset (or a full cyle, as in our 24-hour day), is logically ambiguous.
“Day” in the context of Genesis 1 is intended to refer to the normal work day, as part of the work period that ends with a day of rest. The work period resumes after the day of rest. Genesis 1 teaches, among many other things, Yahweh’s institution of the six-day work week that ends with one day of rest, called the “sabbath”. The Sabbath has been Divinely sanctioned. It is not something the Hebrews are allowed to change or fail to observe.
In summary, if one agrees the use of “day” literally means the daylight hours of a single work day, or something similar, but also claims “day” has another meaning, as well, i.e. that of “a thousand years” (in some figurative sense), then I will ask for evidence of that second meaning. II Peter 3:8 is not supportive. Oftentimes, a single word in Scripture will have more than one sense, yet I see no indication of it for “day” in Genesis 1.
Moses
Prior to the division of books called the Pentateuch, the Hebrews referred to their single book as the “Torah”, “The Book of the Law of Moses”, or just the “Law of Moses”. The Torah is part historical, part legal. Because the name of Moses was attached to the Torah, does not necessarily mean that Moses physically penned the text. The content of the Torah, though, is connected to Moses himself.
In some cases, the writing of a book in the Bible occurs relatively late. The content of the book is preceded by an oral tradition. When there is more than one oral tradition, they are preserved and get woven together by the inspired writer because the oral traditions are sacred. So, the word of God is sometimes passed on by word of mouth before it is written down. Genesis is a good example of this situation.
What Moses said and did were first passed along in oral traditions before it was written down. Of course, the oral traditions are Divinely guided, otherwise the inspired author would not be relying on accounts that are the word of God.
C
CreedalCatholic
Guest
Time is a finite quantity. A measure in change of an objects’ position. For instance, the car moved at 35 miles per hour. The hour is measurable in reference to a creations’ movement within a dimension. Where does that occurence of change and dimension come from? Something that can be quantified and measurable is there in a finite sense. So, time does exist. The word for which is the essence of change doesn’t imply progressive nor regressive changes of something. A woman could change her position from moving from one place to another in so much time (the change may not be regressive or progressive.) That is, time is a measurable phenomenon in nature without any necessary forward or backward change. There would be certain changes in her body (i.e. the stress of moving causes a change.) Should the women stand, she still has processes in her body. Certainly there are biological changes for better or for worse. Sitting may cause a person to get fat. And, running could cause a person to get fit.
If time stopped, then all material things would stop. The atom is made of parts that move around and around at such and such a rate in time. Now, a stop of time is immeasurable. Outside of time is immeasurable. So, does time cease outside of time? The point is that Divine Revelation is an observance outside of time about things in time. For instance, Daniel had a vision about Israel being conquered by gentile nations. The events had to be revealed from outside of time. That is, the events were related as a bird’s eye view beyond and around Daniel’s time (i.e. Babylon, Assyria, Greece, and Rome.)
The story of creation had to be revealed. How could a human being have seen events before his or her own existence? So, there must have been a revealing of those events.
What about the big bang? There must have been an initiator of the initiated event. The event had to be created from nothing. If there was nothing of that things’ existence, then that thing had to be created out of nothing. Saying nothing still means something. For, nothing is the absence of being. The absence of being is still a sense something not being in existence. So, where does existence come from?
Christ was born in Bethlehem once. Christ will come again. But, He already entered into creation, into death, and into eternal life. The mysterious identity of Christ is still the same identity of the Creator Who created the big bang. There isn’t another occurence of the birth of Christ and the big bang. And, both events did occur in time. Yet, there is the before and after of time. He Who is before creation and after creation. He Who is the Alpha and Omega.
He is God the Creator and He Who is. He is God Who saves, God with us, God the omniscient, God the transcendent, God the incorruptable, God the unchangeable, and God the all-powerful. He is eternal. He always has been and always will be. These statements are the finite resemblence of which we try to describe God. God Who is, is Whom all things are in existence. He can interact with His creation. He spoke to Moses and Abraham. He came into His creation and spoke with authority. He is the very meaning of life. He is man’s purpose. He is to be objectively loved as all things were done in love. He gave His only begotten Son. He is love. He gave free will. He gave man a conscience.
Love is the intimate bound of creation to the Creator. The Lord Who sevened Himself (He oathed Himself to His creation.) All existence is in love. Pagans especially were drawn to the love of the creation rather than the Creator.
Love is real. If love did not exist or there weren’t any partaking of this mysterious purpose, then the saints would not have existed.
If time stopped, then all material things would stop. The atom is made of parts that move around and around at such and such a rate in time. Now, a stop of time is immeasurable. Outside of time is immeasurable. So, does time cease outside of time? The point is that Divine Revelation is an observance outside of time about things in time. For instance, Daniel had a vision about Israel being conquered by gentile nations. The events had to be revealed from outside of time. That is, the events were related as a bird’s eye view beyond and around Daniel’s time (i.e. Babylon, Assyria, Greece, and Rome.)
The story of creation had to be revealed. How could a human being have seen events before his or her own existence? So, there must have been a revealing of those events.
What about the big bang? There must have been an initiator of the initiated event. The event had to be created from nothing. If there was nothing of that things’ existence, then that thing had to be created out of nothing. Saying nothing still means something. For, nothing is the absence of being. The absence of being is still a sense something not being in existence. So, where does existence come from?
Christ was born in Bethlehem once. Christ will come again. But, He already entered into creation, into death, and into eternal life. The mysterious identity of Christ is still the same identity of the Creator Who created the big bang. There isn’t another occurence of the birth of Christ and the big bang. And, both events did occur in time. Yet, there is the before and after of time. He Who is before creation and after creation. He Who is the Alpha and Omega.
He is God the Creator and He Who is. He is God Who saves, God with us, God the omniscient, God the transcendent, God the incorruptable, God the unchangeable, and God the all-powerful. He is eternal. He always has been and always will be. These statements are the finite resemblence of which we try to describe God. God Who is, is Whom all things are in existence. He can interact with His creation. He spoke to Moses and Abraham. He came into His creation and spoke with authority. He is the very meaning of life. He is man’s purpose. He is to be objectively loved as all things were done in love. He gave His only begotten Son. He is love. He gave free will. He gave man a conscience.
Love is the intimate bound of creation to the Creator. The Lord Who sevened Himself (He oathed Himself to His creation.) All existence is in love. Pagans especially were drawn to the love of the creation rather than the Creator.
Love is real. If love did not exist or there weren’t any partaking of this mysterious purpose, then the saints would not have existed.
C
CreedalCatholic
Guest
The problem with secular science isn’t science. Rather, the problem is the human willed advocacy of scientism. An ‘ism’ is a philosophy. The ‘ism’ is the proposition of an intuitive fill-in-the-blank argument (i.e. evolution.) called the missing-link. Why would clever apes need to attempt an argument about a meaningless existence? Scientism is the belief that evolution is the center of the universe. So, scientism is a philosophical measure of all things in existence by the reasoning faculty of the mind interpreting a fill-in-the-blank philosophy without a scientific re-occuring condition (i.e. the Newtonian laws of physics, and Bernoulli’s law.) The human being uses his or her voice to give life to science in the foundation of debate through suggestive means of eloquence. Salvation of a human being is left out of science. How can a scientist discuss morals and objective laws of right and wrong?
Fundamentalism is the other ‘ism.’ In some sense, the problem of creationism and scientism is a Protestant type of debate. The fundamenalist approach centers everything around a literal sense of understanding though the faculty of the mind. Man begins to measure Scripture by his or her own intuitive will.
The problem with the two ‘ism’s’ is that neither one is necessarily a genuine desire of loving one’s neighbor. Both scientism and fundamentalism is fueled by pride. That is, both believe man is the measure of all things. The fundamentalist view is man needs God and man is incapable of doing things without God. The observation isn’t a bad one. Accept, the fundamentalist cannot understand Joseph loving God and being a chaste spouse. Love is missing on both sides.
What does scientism view about abortion, euthanasia, disordered sexual attractions, etc.?
Fundamentalism is the other ‘ism.’ In some sense, the problem of creationism and scientism is a Protestant type of debate. The fundamenalist approach centers everything around a literal sense of understanding though the faculty of the mind. Man begins to measure Scripture by his or her own intuitive will.
The problem with the two ‘ism’s’ is that neither one is necessarily a genuine desire of loving one’s neighbor. Both scientism and fundamentalism is fueled by pride. That is, both believe man is the measure of all things. The fundamentalist view is man needs God and man is incapable of doing things without God. The observation isn’t a bad one. Accept, the fundamentalist cannot understand Joseph loving God and being a chaste spouse. Love is missing on both sides.
What does scientism view about abortion, euthanasia, disordered sexual attractions, etc.?
- Status