"What is the age of the earth?"

[Chipper]

Poisonous plants are a result of the Fall.

Seems to me that the “Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil” was pretty poisonous. After all this tree was so poisonous that it cased to the death of all of mankind, and creation in general. That is some powerful poison, that was already in place prior to the fall of Man.
Perhaps it was tree grown under the sun, and not under the light of God.

The whole structure of the thing is liturgical and covenantial.

Frankly I find the whole structure of the Bible to be convenatial and liturgical. After all the Bible is used in every Mass, during the “Liturgy of the word”. Doesn’t that make the whole bible Liturgical?

Think about it. Seven days (covenant). Marriage (covenant). Blessing of the seventh day (liturgical). Adam is charged to “till and keep” the Garden (Liturgical). Adam names the animals (covenant). Proclamation of God’s word (liturgical). Ten uses of “And GOd said” (covenant).

Okay, I agree with this, but this is no reason to EXCLUDE chronological history. It is just more of a reason to me to say the God is really a smart guy after all.

Can you provide list of historical aspects (keeping with ancient near-eastern traditions of history, of course) of the first 2 chapters of Genesis?

Why do you restrict me to just “near-eastern” traditions. Is this evidence that are you putting “STRUCTURED” boundaries on me, in the hopes that I won’t be able to break through your specifically defined boundaries?

If you are going to do that (put your own boundaries on it), then just let’s close down the “Patent Office”, which is what they did back in the late 1890’s. The government put their own “Boundaries” on the inventions and then all of a sudden they decided there was nothing more to invent.

 

[StTommyMore]

Seems to me that the “Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil” was pretty poisonous. After all this tree was so poisonous that it cased to the death of all of mankind, and creation in general. That is some powerful poison, that was already in place prior to the fall of Man.
Perhaps it was tree grown under the sun, and not under the light of God.

Frankly I find the whole structure of the Bible to be convenatial and liturgical. After all the Bible is used in every Mass, during the “Liturgy of the word”. Doesn’t that make the whole bible Liturgical?

Okay, I agree with this, but this is no reason to EXCLUDE chronological history. It is just more of a reason to me to say the God is really a smart guy after all.

Why do you restrict me to just “near-eastern” traditions. Is this evidence that are you putting “STRUCTURED” boundaries on me, in the hopes that I won’t be able to break through your specifically defined boundaries?

If you are going to do that (put your own boundaries on it), then just let’s close down the “Patent Office”, which is what they did back in the late 1890’s. The government put their own “Boundaries” on the inventions and then all of a sudden they decided there was nothing more to invent.

I limit you to the ANE because that is who wrote it. It would be written according to their traditions, as that was the original audience. Historical context, my friend.

 

[Chipper]

I limit you to the ANE because that is who wrote it. It would be written according to their traditions, as that was the original audience. Historical context, my friend.

Once again you are putting “Boundaries” on this.

I like to give God the benefit of Supernatural Intelligence and capability. In other words it is truly “Inspired by God”. As such, it’s meanings should be infinite.

So if evidence supports the chronology, then perhaps it should be accepted. There is bounded history, then there is enlightened history.

 

[StTommyMore]

Once again you are putting “Boundaries” on this.

I like to give God the benefit of Supernatural Intelligence and capability. In other words it is truly “Inspired by God”. As such, it’s meanings should be infinite.

So if evidence supports the chronology, then perhaps it should be accepted. There is bounded history, then there is enlightened history.

Have you ever done an detailed exegesis?

 

[Chipper]

Have you ever done an detailed exegesis?

What’s that got do with any of this?

 

[StTommyMore]

What’s that got do with any of this?

When you do a detailed exegesis, in order to ensure proper interpretation, you have to take several factors into consideration, one of which is historical context. You have to understand who the original audience was, and how they would look at the passage. You have to adapt the eyes of ancient Israel.

 

[Chipper]

When you do a detailed exegesis, in order to ensure proper interpretation, you have to take several factors into consideration, one of which is historical context. You have to understand who the original audience was, and how they would look at the passage. You have to adapt the eyes of ancient Israel.

Actually I have done detailed exegesis on Genesis many times in the past. I was just baiting you.

You really can’t see that you are hung up on boundaries.

You have just defined yet another boundary, of which I am not allowed to cross. You have now restricted me to the “Eyes of Ancient Israel”, instead of including the “Eyes of God, the Holy Spirit and the Word of God”. Which by definition must be included in any sort of exegesis, otherewise, we are merely talking about a “Historical” document and not a “Liturgical” document. Liturgical by definition is directly attached to “Word of God”.

 

[buffalo]

When you do a detailed exegesis, in order to ensure proper interpretation, you have to take several factors into consideration, one of which is historical context. You have to understand who the original audience was, and how they would look at the passage. You have to adapt the eyes of ancient Israel.

If one does a detailed exegesis as if the Bible fell out of the sky and it’s the first time we saw it the results will be quite different because it would be impossible to filter out our modern perspective. This is dangerous. :tsktsk:

One must do exegesis in a way consistent with the constant understanding and teaching of the Church passed on from the original hearers.

 

[StTommyMore]

Actually I have done detailed exegesis on Genesis many times in the past. I was just baiting you.

You really can’t see that you are hung up on boundaries.

You have just defined yet another boundary, of which I am not allowed to cross. You have now restricted me to the “Eyes of Ancient Israel”, instead of including the “Eyes of God, the Holy Spirit and the Word of God”. Which by definition must be included in any sort of exegesis, otherewise, we are merely talking about a “Historical” document and not a “Liturgical” document. Liturgical by definition is directly attached to “Word of God”.

Ignoring historical context is a sure way to misinterpret the Scriptures.

 

[Third_Day]

But not in a chronological framework. It is indeed “what” happened, but not “how”! Furthermore, the point of Genesis 1 is the establishment of the Adamic Covenant. It is liturgical, oriented towards worship on the sabbath. Chronologically it makes no sense. Birds before reptiles? Light before the sun?

Why not birds before reptiles???
You don’t need the sun to produce light. When God said “let there be light” billions of photons could have been created to produced light. They traveled throughout the created universe thus bringing night and day. On the fourth day the sun was created and the photons ceased to exist. Genesis is all very logical when read literally.

 

[Chipper]

Ignoring historical context is a sure way to misinterpret the Scriptures.

Whoa whoa tiger.

You are the one who started by saying Genesis is Adamic , and that there is no chronology/history.

No you are saying there is historical context.

Well what’s up??

 

[StTommyMore]

Why not birds before reptiles???
You don’t need the sun to produce light. When God said “let there be light” billions of photons could have been created to produced light. They traveled throughout the created universe thus bringing night and day. On the fourth day the sun was created and the photons ceased to exist. Genesis is all very logical when read literally.

This description defies logic. Birds before reptiles contradicts physical evidence (birds, being warm blooded are a more developed life form than reptiles). I will just pretend you didn’t say that silliness about photons.

 

[Third_Day]

=StTommyMore;7122742]When you do a detailed exegesis, in order to ensure proper interpretation, you have to take several factors into consideration, one of which is historical context. You have to understand who the original audience was, and how they would look at the passage. You have to adapt the eyes of ancient Israel.

The early Church Fathers, who were quite good at exegesis, believed in a literal 6 days of creation. I’m quite sure that Augustine was the only exception and he believed the universe was created at once.

 

[Third_Day]

This description defies logic. Birds before reptiles contradicts physical evidence (birds, being warm blooded are a more developed life form than reptiles). I will just pretend you didn’t say that silliness about photons.

That silliness about photons used by God to create light comes from Father Pacwa.
Are you saying that birds evolved from reptiles?

 

[StTommyMore]

That silliness about photons used by God to create light comes from Father Pacwa.
Are you saying that birds evolved from reptiles?

I am saying that it is likely that modern birds and reptiles may have evolved from a common ancestor. And I have a great deal of respect for Fr. Mitch as a theologian. I am sure that he would remind you that Catholics may accept evolution, though not Darwinism

 

[StTommyMore]

The early Church Fathers, who were quite good at exegesis, believed in a literal 6 days of creation. I’m quite sure that Augustine was the only exception and he believed the universe was created at once.

Holding to the 6-day literalist interpretation is not an article of faith

 

[Third_Day]

I am saying that it is likely that modern birds and reptiles may have evolved from a common ancestor. And I have a great deal of respect for Fr. Mitch as a theologian. I am sure that he would remind you that Catholics may accept evolution, though not Darwinism

Evolution is a “theory”. There is no proof that birds and reptiles evolved from anything. Father Pacwa didn’t just make up the fact that photons were created before the sun. I have read this idea from physicists as well. It 's very logical. I don’t see why you would have a problem with it.

 

[StTommyMore]

Evolution is a “theory”. There is no proof that birds and reptiles evolved from anything. Father Pacwa didn’t just make up the fact that photons were created before the sun. I have read this idea from physicists as well. It 's very logical. I don’t see why you would have a problem with it.

Your use of “theory” shows you do not have an understanding of the scientific definition. The body of evidence in support of some form of evolution is immense. You should read the works of Dr. Ben Wiker (he is Catholic).

 

[Third_Day]

Holding to the 6-day literalist interpretation is not an article of faith

But as Catholics were are to take the literal meaning of scripture first unless there is an obvious reason not to. I see no obvious reason to read Genesis any way other than literally.

 

[StTommyMore]

But as Catholics were are to take the literal meaning of scripture first unless there is an obvious reason not to. I see no obvious reason to read Genesis any way other than literally.

What about the fossil record?