What make you think That Adam and Eve are real despite the evolutionary change or chance and widespread of the Neanderthals and Homosapians

  • Thread starter Thread starter Pathway2
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Yes, ever since a body was formed that is organized in such a way that it can receive a rational soul. Since then the rational soul in flesh was to be perfected in the body and both receive the ultimate end of temporal life. Creation waits for the resurrection, the revealing of the sons of God.
 
bobperk said:
I’m not sure how you can understand how the Bible was written when you couldn’t even recognize my “copy and paste” statement as hyperbole. So apparently you can discern all the complexities of Scripture, but can’t tell if someone is using a certain writing technique in a CAF post. Whoops!
Click to expand...
want a shovel?
 
bobperk said:
Perhaps we both need one. We can try to find the Q source together.
Click to expand...
if I can stop laughing at cruciferi"s source. I would answer you in a serious fashion.
but hey lets see,
the only documentation our ancients left, from 1AD and subsequent decades was whats been published in the Bible right?

No Essenese , no Dead Sea Scrolls, no one ever wrote or redacted or transcribed or published other then the authors of the New Testament? Right?

Poor old Q

We won’t be doing anything together mate, its already been done.
Matthew and Luke wrote the book!
 
Yes? You said Noah saved only local living things and animals, and God presumably made sure that animals useful humans were saved. Everything else presumably went extinct. Right?

Therefore, every living today would be a descendant of something that made it onto the ark.
 
Last edited:
If it’s a literal event at all, then regional. What do you believe?
 
This feels…unresponsive.

So, local or global, my dude?
 
Last edited:
I am not an expert on anything, but the encyclical Humani Generis helped me understand Genesis better. Around numbers 36,37, and 38 the pope gives some understanding.

And yes, we must remember that Sacred Scripture is not a science book!
 
Because if you say regional, clearly you’re okay with reading the Bible with something besides 100% straightforward literalism. Yet you insist on a totally literal Genesis because you “believe the Bible.”

Surely you see the disconnect here.
 
BoomBoomMancini said:
I honestly didnt know any sizable portion of Catholics took Genesis literally. I thought the only people who believed that Genesis is a literal, straightforward account of creation were Protestant uber-fundamentalists who hang out at Ken Ham’s creation museum
Click to expand...
When did it change in your opinion?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top