S
somecanadian
Guest
I literally posted a link to this exact same thing. Allegory is not meant to be taken literally. We are to take the meaning literally not the actual words. Obviously.
What make you think That Adam and Eve are real despite the evolutionary change or chance and widespread of the Neanderthals and Homosapians
- Status
R
Roseeurekacross
Guest
We know Biblical authors redacted their works.
We see it in the Gospels. Matthew and Luke redacted Mark’s Gospel, and are also thought to have redacted Q.
B
bobperk
Guest
Yes, “modern” biblical scholarship has all sorts of theories on Q, who copied whom, various “writing communities” etc. So it sounds like you agree that a lot of Sacred Scripture was a “copy and paste” job. Adam? Nah, not an inspired name of the first man. It’s just that the later authors copied a mythical name which itself was just another version of an ANE creation myth.
D
Dovekin
Guest
Your position is an unholy and impish attack on the concept of tradition, attempting to portray the biblical author’s acceptance of Genesis as like folklore.
Adam and Eve are both mythic names. Adam is a version of the Hebrew for earth, and is meant to convey that people come from the earth and become alienated from it, as the atory tells us. Eve is similar, derived from Hebrew forms of the word life, and embodied in the title “Mother of all the living.” Reading these names as just proper names alienates them from the literal sense of Genesis, their intended meaning.
More serious than that oddity is your assault on the concept of tradition. Belittling the bible’s authors with scorn for copying terms and calling it folklore fails to grasp the most basic idea of tradition. The Torah, including Genesis, is shared by the bible’s readers, and writers revered what was handed to them and repeated the story to enrich and explain what it meant. This is the nature of folklore, even in the form of religious writings. It is to be respected, not repudiated.
Adam and Eve are both mythic names. Adam is a version of the Hebrew for earth, and is meant to convey that people come from the earth and become alienated from it, as the atory tells us. Eve is similar, derived from Hebrew forms of the word life, and embodied in the title “Mother of all the living.” Reading these names as just proper names alienates them from the literal sense of Genesis, their intended meaning.
More serious than that oddity is your assault on the concept of tradition. Belittling the bible’s authors with scorn for copying terms and calling it folklore fails to grasp the most basic idea of tradition. The Torah, including Genesis, is shared by the bible’s readers, and writers revered what was handed to them and repeated the story to enrich and explain what it meant. This is the nature of folklore, even in the form of religious writings. It is to be respected, not repudiated.
B
bobperk
Guest
Lol, “belittling” the Bible’s authors, saying it’s folklore is exactly what the modernist Biblical revisionists do. Just a bunch of legends, “true myths.”
B
BoomBoomMancini
Guest
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.
B
BoomBoomMancini
Guest
I’m not sure you’re in the best position for sarcasm when you’re arguing that everything in the Bible is 100% literal. Like, do you believe Noah literally put a male and female of every living species on a boat?
R
Roseeurekacross
Guest
Bob perk, who do you think wrote the 4 Gospels?
When did they write them?
For what audience did the write them?
What is Quelle
When did they write them?
For what audience did the write them?
What is Quelle
R
Roseeurekacross
Guest
Sounds like you need to study up on redaction, and on Catholic Catechism itself.
Also , I suggest, learning the different Biblical genres, including myth.
What is myth?
Last edited:
D
Dovekin
Guest
I have no problem calling the bible folklore, the stories handed down by the people God chose. It is a blessing for all who read it, as it reveals how God acts with them and with all.
Your approach is so far outside that reverence I usually do not try to argue about it. You say folklore in a scornful way, and try to trivialize the effort the biblical authors put into their writing. There are passages in the gospels that certainly look like the authors “cut and pasted.” It is a major way we see their artistry, by looking at the small changes they made. We learn how different individuals get different things when they read, and what they want to emphasize when they retell. It is insightful and inspiring.
I do not understand why you reject this understanding that the Church teaches. You hold onto folklore that grew in the Church when people did not try to read the texts much.
Your approach is so far outside that reverence I usually do not try to argue about it. You say folklore in a scornful way, and try to trivialize the effort the biblical authors put into their writing. There are passages in the gospels that certainly look like the authors “cut and pasted.” It is a major way we see their artistry, by looking at the small changes they made. We learn how different individuals get different things when they read, and what they want to emphasize when they retell. It is insightful and inspiring.
I do not understand why you reject this understanding that the Church teaches. You hold onto folklore that grew in the Church when people did not try to read the texts much.
E
edwest211
Guest
That’s exactly what’s happening here.
C
Cruciferi
Guest
He didn’t have to save them all and nor could he. Likely, only specific local fauna got evacuated. God probably only spared the animals that would be useful for the remaining humans.
B
bobperk
Guest
Do you think I don’t know these things, as if I have not read them? All of the different theories on the orders of the Gospels compared to tradition? As if I have not studied the Q-source and the documentary hypothesis, etc.? Do you think you are the only one who knows about these theories? And as for the Catechism, does it state that one must believe in Q, or in all of these various authorship theories, etc? Again, must believe in? No, nowhere does it say that a Catholic has to accept the musings of modern Biblical scholarship.
Last edited:
C
Cruciferi
Guest
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
R
Roseeurekacross
Guest
quite frankly, because you do not understand how the Gospels of Matthew and Luke were redacted, I don’t think you know these things.
You believe redaction is copy and paste.
You have little understanding of how the Biblical books were written by the human authors. After all, God enlisted the aide of humans to write the Bible. God wanted us to know our salvation history and the things we need for salvation, through human language, through the eyes , ears, hearts, and experiences of humans.
we can only understand what God wants us to know, this way.
This is not modern biblical scholarship, my friend.
From ancient times, from the human authors of Genesis, the creation stories, people have been writing the Biblical account in human traditions, in human language.
And as St Augustine says, God only gives us information we need to know for our salvation history. We don’t get any more information.
Jesus was born human. Jesus had a perfect human nature, Jesus experienced all the sufferings and emotions everyone does.
What does that tell you?
B
bobperk
Guest
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!
Last edited:
E
Edy
Guest
The first self replicating cell had all the potential for the creation of our family tree, in the way a seed has the potential to create an actual tree.
A seed reacts to gravity, light, sound and many other laws of physics, as does the seed of evolution.
The first land creature sprouted legs because of gravity, we developed eyes because of light, and ears because of sound. We are not some random spontaneous development. We evolved with the laws of physics guiding our development.
And what are the laws of physics, anything other than the will of God?
All powerful, omnipotent and eternal!
We do not sprout legs on our head, because God willed it so. If we were random spontaneous creations then perhaps we would.
A seed reacts to gravity, light, sound and many other laws of physics, as does the seed of evolution.
The first land creature sprouted legs because of gravity, we developed eyes because of light, and ears because of sound. We are not some random spontaneous development. We evolved with the laws of physics guiding our development.
And what are the laws of physics, anything other than the will of God?
All powerful, omnipotent and eternal!
We do not sprout legs on our head, because God willed it so. If we were random spontaneous creations then perhaps we would.
B
Benadam
Guest
Jesus referenced the beginning when asked about marriage. The information about the beginning He taught from is the same account of the beginning we have. The beginning He taught the truth about marriage from was before sin. The marriage He was speaking about was Adam and Eve’s marriage.
Evolution of the flesh reached it’s goal in human life. From that point on evolution became an interior reality in the human composite of body and immortal soul. Man failed to reach the intended end for human life to evolve into. God became a human and did it for us.
The One who taught the truth about the beginning of human evolution showed us the truth of the end of human evolution.
Evolution of the flesh reached it’s goal in human life. From that point on evolution became an interior reality in the human composite of body and immortal soul. Man failed to reach the intended end for human life to evolve into. God became a human and did it for us.
The One who taught the truth about the beginning of human evolution showed us the truth of the end of human evolution.
Last edited:
C
Cruciferi
Guest
So there’s evolution of the soul now? Must be how we went from monkey souls to immortal human souls
- Status