A
AlbertBall
Guest
I was with you all they way up to “and other times to the intervention of a sympathetic divine power.” However I’m just splitting hairs now
. Excellent post 
.
Why do fundamentalists believe the world is 6000-10000 years old?
- Status
. Excellent post .
I
itinerant1
Guest
Source of the Hebrew Tradition
“In the Babylonian, and especially in the Hebrew, tradition there is the blending of two still earlier legends, the one of the destruction of mankind, wholly or in part, by the punitive judgment of the divine powers, owing to man’s wickedness—a legend of a character similar to that of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, or the story of Philemon and Baucis in classic lore; the other, that of a flood as such, either local or universal. The Flood was not in the tradition’s view universal, as “universal” would be understood at present, simply because the world of the early writers was a totally different world from that of to-day.”
(from the Jewish Encyclopedia, 1901-1906)
“In the Babylonian, and especially in the Hebrew, tradition there is the blending of two still earlier legends, the one of the destruction of mankind, wholly or in part, by the punitive judgment of the divine powers, owing to man’s wickedness—a legend of a character similar to that of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, or the story of Philemon and Baucis in classic lore; the other, that of a flood as such, either local or universal. The Flood was not in the tradition’s view universal, as “universal” would be understood at present, simply because the world of the early writers was a totally different world from that of to-day.”
(from the Jewish Encyclopedia, 1901-1906)
T
twinc
Guest
Catholics here and elsewhere have got to get it quickly and once and for all that it is the Bible and not any other book or any other body that is inerrant or at least allow some commonsense that if water in a local area covered the high mountains then that same water on finding its own level,as water does,would spread a lot more than just local - again and again as here we are not concerned about early writers or how it could have been or should have been,according to some, but how in fact it was according to God - if this is not what you accept what are you doing here posing as a Catholic and trying to convince a Catholic like me that it is I who have got it all wrong - twinc
I
itinerant1
Guest
Did you “accidentally” not see the quotes from the Catholic Encyclopedia that make it clear the manner in which you interpret the Deluge story is incorrect?
Did you also not see the quote from Fr. Jaki, who was a member of the Pontifical Academy of Science who also makes it clear that a literalist interpretation of the Deluge is not reasonable or accurate.
The Bible contains many literary genres through which the inspired writers communicate their message. Each *genus litterarium *has it’s own way of communicating. If you do not correctly and fully recognize the *genus litterarium and how it works, *thenyou are not reading the text as it was intended to read. Apparently, you read under the false belief that since the biblical text is inerrant than it must be historical. However, their is no justification for that position based on the history of biblical exegesis.
For example, are you aware that Origen, St. Augustine, St. Gregory of Nyssa and his school taught that Genesis 1 cannot be interpreted as creation in a literal six days? Furthermore, St. Thomas Aquinas said a direct creation in six days is favored “by a superficial reading of Scripture.”
In addition, St. Thomas Aquinas teaches in the Summa Theologica that the literal sense in Scripture is the basis for the other senses intended by the sacred writers. It would seem that you are stuck not actually on the literal sense but a literalism, which does not take one very far into the meaning.
Also, are you aware that the Vatican does not agree with literalistic reading of Scripture. Here is a quote from *Dei Verbum *( *Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation)
*
12. However, since God speaks in Sacred Scripture through men in human fashion, the interpreter of Sacred Scripture, in order to see clearly what God wanted to communicate to us, should carefully investigate what meaning the sacred writers really intended, and what God wanted to manifest by means of their words.
To search out the intention of the sacred writers, attention should be given, among other things, to “literary forms.” For truth is set forth and expressed differently in texts which are variously historical, prophetic, poetic, or of other forms of discourse. The interpreter must investigate what meaning the sacred writer intended to express and actually expressed in particular circumstances by using contemporary literary forms in accordance with the situation of his own time and culture. For the correct understanding of what the sacred author wanted to assert, due attention must be paid to the customary and characteristic styles of feeling, speaking and narrating which prevailed at the time of the sacred writer, and to the patterns men normally employed at that period in their everyday dealings with one another.
I think you are discounting what the Church teaches about reading the Bible and holding fast to your own ideas without learning from the Church.
I
itinerant1
Guest
Another quote about biblical literalism and creationism:
"Evolution contradicts a literal interpretation of Genesis; however, according to Catholicism and most Protestant Churches, these days, Biblical Literalism is not mandatory. Some feel that seeing Genesis as a myth or as an allegory has been considered a “cop-out,” and that it was always interpreted literally until biological evolution came and disproved it. Others would state that the concept of myth is not synonymous with being “false”; and that a myth is “a truth in unfamiliar clothing” (J.R.R. Tolkien, C.S. Lewis, and Owen Barfield all support this interpretation).
"Historically, it is claimed that Biblical Literalism came about with the rise of Protestantism; before Protestantism, the Bible wasn’t interpreted completely literally. Fr. Stanley Jaki, Benedictine priest, distinguished physicist and theologian, states in his Bible and Science (Christendom Press, 1996):
““Insofar as the study of the original languages of the Bible was severed from authoritative ecclesiastical preaching as its matrix, it fueled literalism… Biblical literalism taken for a source of scientific information is making the rounds even nowadays among creationists who would merit Julian Huxley’s description of ‘bibliolaters.’ They merely bring discredit to the Bible as they pile grist upon grist on the mills of latter-day Huxleys, such as Hoyle, Sagan, Gould, and others. The fallacies of creationism go deeper than fallacious reasonings about scientific data. Where creationism is fundamentally at fault is its resting its case on a theological fault line: the biblicism constructed by the [Protestant] Reformers.” (Jaki, pages 110-111)”
(Source: bringyou.to/apologetics/p94.htm)
"Evolution contradicts a literal interpretation of Genesis; however, according to Catholicism and most Protestant Churches, these days, Biblical Literalism is not mandatory. Some feel that seeing Genesis as a myth or as an allegory has been considered a “cop-out,” and that it was always interpreted literally until biological evolution came and disproved it. Others would state that the concept of myth is not synonymous with being “false”; and that a myth is “a truth in unfamiliar clothing” (J.R.R. Tolkien, C.S. Lewis, and Owen Barfield all support this interpretation).
"Historically, it is claimed that Biblical Literalism came about with the rise of Protestantism; before Protestantism, the Bible wasn’t interpreted completely literally. Fr. Stanley Jaki, Benedictine priest, distinguished physicist and theologian, states in his Bible and Science (Christendom Press, 1996):
““Insofar as the study of the original languages of the Bible was severed from authoritative ecclesiastical preaching as its matrix, it fueled literalism… Biblical literalism taken for a source of scientific information is making the rounds even nowadays among creationists who would merit Julian Huxley’s description of ‘bibliolaters.’ They merely bring discredit to the Bible as they pile grist upon grist on the mills of latter-day Huxleys, such as Hoyle, Sagan, Gould, and others. The fallacies of creationism go deeper than fallacious reasonings about scientific data. Where creationism is fundamentally at fault is its resting its case on a theological fault line: the biblicism constructed by the [Protestant] Reformers.” (Jaki, pages 110-111)”
(Source: bringyou.to/apologetics/p94.htm)
S
steve711
Guest
I am a cradle Catholic and my children are cradle Catholics, and we were never taught to take the Old Testament literally. I as a scientist/engineer do not believe the Old Testament is a history book, but a religious book. Remember, the Old Testament was a book used to teach young Hebrew men how to read and the traditions of their religion. I do believe God in his wisdom did use the messages and parables in the Old Testament to help guide man to live a religious life and gave us some prophecies.
I do believe that Jesus Christ is our Savior and that the new testament is the truth. But again, it was written when man was more enlightened and wrote what Jesus Christ wanted us to know about our salvation.
Most of this Creationist theory has creped in to the Catholic religion in the last 30 or so years from the Protestant religion. Remember, the Catholic church has its three pillars to stand on. We have tradition (2000 years old), the Catholic Bible, and the Pope and Bishops(descended from the Apostles) to help guide us. The Protestant Churches have shorter traditions and depend heavily on the Bible for their teachings.
I also believe that if God did not want us to discover the Earths history, he would not have given us the ability to reason, explore our surroundings, and develop science.
Go with Gods Grace!
I do believe that Jesus Christ is our Savior and that the new testament is the truth. But again, it was written when man was more enlightened and wrote what Jesus Christ wanted us to know about our salvation.
Most of this Creationist theory has creped in to the Catholic religion in the last 30 or so years from the Protestant religion. Remember, the Catholic church has its three pillars to stand on. We have tradition (2000 years old), the Catholic Bible, and the Pope and Bishops(descended from the Apostles) to help guide us. The Protestant Churches have shorter traditions and depend heavily on the Bible for their teachings.
I also believe that if God did not want us to discover the Earths history, he would not have given us the ability to reason, explore our surroundings, and develop science.
Go with Gods Grace!
I
itinerant1
Guest
Another inconvenient fact for creationists on biblical literalist:
St. Augustine and St. Gregory of Nyssa and his school taught a theological form of biological evolution.
St. Augustine and St. Gregory of Nyssa and his school taught a theological form of biological evolution.
I
itinerant1
Guest
Right on!
I would make one small qualification to what you said. There are parts of the Bible that are historical, even though it is not history in modern sense of the term.
I
itinerant1
Guest
Typo:Another inconvenient fact for creationists on biblical literalist:
St. Augustine and St. Gregory of Nyssa and his school taught a theological form of biological evolution.
I meant to say…
Another inconvenient fact for creationists and biblical literalists:
St. Augustine and St. Gregory of Nyssa and his school taught a theological form of biological evolution.
S
steve711
Guest
I stand corrected.Right on!
I would make one small qualification to what you said. There are parts of the Bible that are historical, even though it is not history in modern sense of the term.
Go with Gods Grace!
A
AlbertBall
Guest
Can we keep to the age of the please, not that i have anything against whispersevolution, and not that you have to listen to me. It’s not like im a mod , I just don’t want to see another thread being locked 
.
, I just don’t want to see another thread being locked .
I
itinerant1
Guest
I keep forgetting. Thanks for the reminder. Perhaps if we actually have to mention something about that unmentionable, volatile, temper producing, war provoking topic, we could use code.Can we keep to the age of the please, not that i have anything against whispersevolution, and not that you have to listen to me. It’s not like im a mod
No. Better not. Some disgruntled, can’t handle an argument, poster would give up the code and then we would be toast.
S
spn82756
Guest
NOOOOOOOOOOO! Best be careful!I keep forgetting. Thanks for the reminder. Perhaps if we actually have to mention something about that unmentionable, volatile, temper producing, war provoking topic, we could use code.
No. Better not. Some disgruntled, can’t handle an argument, poster would give up the code and then we would be toast.
I
itinerant1
Guest
Steve, welcome to CAF! Does the 711 mean anything as in you are a 7-11 store manager?I stand corrected.
Go with Gods Grace!
I
itinerant1
Guest
I think you mean “no”.
S
spn82756
Guest
okay…I was a little excitedI think you mean “no”.
E
edwest2
Guest
If you look at what the Church teaches, there are certain divinely revealed truths. For Catholics, as we affirm at Mass, He has spoken through the prophets.
First, if you believe in miracles such as those Jesus performed and in Jesus Christ as an actual person and as God, then God can raise the dead and give sight to the blind and create the Universe out of nothing. These things are literally true. If science, so called, cannot comment on or explain these things, it should be obvious that God can do things without offering a scientific explanation. In fact, God uses no technology at all as we understand it.
We are descended from two individuals. They are not part of a group of other human individuals. Finally, the Church teaches that the woman was formed by God from the man’s side. Even if a scientist from today stood next to Jesus and watched him perform His miracles, what explanation could he give? Feeding 5,000 people with a few loaves and fishes? What? God made more appear just as each disciple reached into the basket? Of course. This is what God can do and it literally does not offer a natural explanation.
As far as the age of the earth, the Church offers no final teaching. It does say that the Universe has a finite age.
Hope this helps,
Ed
S
spn82756
Guest
Exactly…as does science.
I
itinerant1
Guest
All true, but how does this contribute to the topic?
E
edwest2
Guest
Actually, no. There is the multiverse theory. There is the expansion-contraction theory where the Universe condenses up to a point and begins to expand again. The add-on to that theory is that the Universe may be infinite. There are definitely issues where science and Church teaching do not line up from an explanation standpoint. But, as I pointed out, God can do things without technology that leave no explanation.
Peace,
Ed
- Status