Why do fundamentalists believe the world is 6000-10000 years old?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Gift_from_God
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
twinc said:
so what’s so strange about that.On another thread it was stated that Catholic biblical scholars had been studying the Bible for over 2000years.They did not it seems spot the errors,contradictions etc that are thrown up by non biblical scholars or put them to right etc - twinc
Click to expand...
  1. What are your examples?
  2. What relevance do the examples have to your assertion that the Bible mentions dinosaurs?
 
spn82756 said:
catholic.com/thisrock/2008/0805fea4.asp
Click to expand...
All well and good, and it makes sense, but doesn’t rule out the possibility that it may all be true either, does it? It still doesn’t neccesarily drive me to consider that the technicalities of Creation may be more similar to the Genesis account than orthodox Science would accept the possibility of, or to stop regularly doubting the objectivity of Darwinists in their calculations and assertions

(reading a book about geologic dating methods only made me more skeptical, and skimming another moreso again, and it’s only the whole point that stars are probably genuinely rather far away, and that light probably takes rather a long time to travel from them if they are, that makes me unenthusiastic about the YE bit - to simplify it all…)
 
spn82756 said:
catholic.com/thisrock/2008/0805fea4.asp
Click to expand...
There are now in history TWO principles of Catholic hermeneutics, one pre-1741, the other post 1741-1833.

This article referred to above is of course post 1741-1833 Catholic hermeneutics. It contains its catalyst in this error:

Described in Figurative Language

Critics often ascribe scientific error to Joshua 10:13: “the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the nation took vengeance on their enemies.” As it is now known that the sun does not revolve around the earth, it seems that the author made a scientific error. But the author did not intend to assert a scientific fact; he was affirming the phenomenon he observed with his senses. (Scholars refer to this as phenomenological language.) We still express ourselves that way today. We do not accuse the weather forecaster of scientific error when he says, “The sun will rise at 6:00 a.m.”

It is in error because nobody knows that the sun does not move around the earth, Nobody has ever proven the sun does not revolve around the earth. You cannot build a true hermeneutics for Catholicism built on a scientific hypothesis taken as a greater truth that that of revelation and the unanimous interpretation of the Fathers. It is the Copernican hermeneutics described in the following quote:

‘Our commission, too, was motivated by very serious concerns of a theological nature, for the pope reveals its existence to the Florentine Ambassador Niccolini on Sept 4, 1632, he will justify his decision by saying that “it was a matter of the most perverse material that one could ever have in one’s hands… doctrine perverse to an extreme degree.” ----Pietro Redondi: Galileo Heretic, Penguin Books, 1983, p.245. ’ —

**The PERVERSE ‘doctrine’ referred to was Galileo’s hermeneutics, yes the same hermeneutics contained in this article and one now held by all - bar a few - in the Church today. This doctrine was described perfectly by the Philosopher Marcello Pera once of the University of Pisa in the book The Cambridge companion to Galileo. **

**Galileo (and Providentissimus Deus) held that all factual statements about natural phenomena contained in the Scriptures have no value for salvation and therefore can be dismissed on scientific grounds.

Bellarmine (successive professor of theology and preacher at Louvain; director of the course of controversy in Rome; Consulter of the Holy Office (Inquisition) and Master of Controversial Questions.) held a different principle, upheld by Pope paul V in a papal decree and confirmed as immutable by Pope Urban VIII. According to the Cardinal Bellarmine and the Church of the time certain factual statements contained in the Scriptures are necessary for their salvation value and therefore cannot be revised in the light of any contrary scientific theories. **
 
cassini said:
There are now in history TWO principles of Catholic hermeneutics, one pre-1741, the other post 1741-1833.

This article referred to above is of course post 1741-1833 Catholic hermeneutics. It contains its catalyst in this error:

Described in Figurative Language

Critics often ascribe scientific error to Joshua 10:13: “the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the nation took vengeance on their enemies.” As it is now known that the sun does not revolve around the earth, it seems that the author made a scientific error. But the author did not intend to assert a scientific fact; he was affirming the phenomenon he observed with his senses. (Scholars refer to this as phenomenological language.) We still express ourselves that way today. We do not accuse the weather forecaster of scientific error when he says, “The sun will rise at 6:00 a.m.”

It is in error because nobody knows that the sun does not move around the earth, Nobody has ever proven the sun does not revolve around the earth. You cannot build a true hermeneutics for Catholicism built on a scientific hypothesis taken as a greater truth that that of revelation and the unanimous interpretation of the Fathers. It is the Copernican hermeneutics described in the following quote:

‘Our commission, too, was motivated by very serious concerns of a theological nature, for the pope reveals its existence to the Florentine Ambassador Niccolini on Sept 4, 1632, he will justify his decision by saying that “it was a matter of the most perverse material that one could ever have in one’s hands… doctrine perverse to an extreme degree.” ----Pietro Redondi: Galileo Heretic, Penguin Books, 1983, p.245. ’ —

**The PERVERSE ‘doctrine’ referred to was Galileo’s hermeneutics, yes the same hermeneutics contained in this article and one now held by all - bar a few - in the Church today. This doctrine was described perfectly by the Philosopher Marcello Pera once of the University of Pisa in the book The Cambridge companion to Galileo. **

**Galileo (and Providentissimus Deus) held that all factual statements about natural phenomena contained in the Scriptures have no value for salvation and therefore can be dismissed on scientific grounds.

Bellarmine (successive professor of theology and preacher at Louvain; director of the course of controversy in Rome; Consulter of the Holy Office (Inquisition) and Master of Controversial Questions.) held a different principle, upheld by Pope paul V in a papal decree and confirmed as immutable by Pope Urban VIII. According to the Cardinal Bellarmine and the Church of the time certain factual statements contained in the Scriptures are necessary for their salvation value and therefore cannot be revised in the light of any contrary scientific theories. **
Click to expand...
Hi Cassini…

Did you have a good New Years Eve? We did! 🙂
 
spn82756 said:
Hi Cassini…

Did you have a good New Years Eve? We did! 🙂
Click to expand...
Apart from our cat of 13 years dying, which upset the wholehousehold, the celebrations went well. Snow, ice and freezing temperatures here in Ireland have brought this unfortunate country to a stand-still on yet another front. The death of our cat brought profound thoughts of the place such loved and loving animals have in God’s plan. Surely that is not the end and one hopes and prays there might be some reunion. Not very orthodox I know, but with God all things are possible.
 
cassini said:
Apart from our cat of 13 years dying, which upset the wholehousehold, the celebrations went well. Snow, ice and freezing temperatures here in Ireland have brought this unfortunate country to a stand-still on yet another front. The death of our cat brought profound thoughts of the place such loved and loving animals have in God’s plan. Surely that is not the end and one hopes and prays there might be some reunion. Not very orthodox I know, but with God all things are possible.
Click to expand...
A question I have been pondering for a wile - The sun emits a tremendous amount of photons around its full periphery. Where do these go? If the universe is of a spherical shape do they come back around? Do they reflect? Do they keep going on forever? If so what do we observe?
 
cassini said:
Apart from our cat of 13 years dying, which upset the wholehousehold, the celebrations went well. Snow, ice and freezing temperatures here in Ireland have brought this unfortunate country to a stand-still on yet another front. The death of our cat brought profound thoughts of the place such loved and loving animals have in God’s plan. Surely that is not the end and one hopes and prays there might be some reunion. Not very orthodox I know, but with God all things are possible.
Click to expand...
It may not be orthodox…but may well be true. Nothing is impossible for God as you said.

When my son was very young…he asked a friend of ours who is a nun if dogs go to heaven. She replied quite nicely. God will have everything there to make you happy. If that means your dog…then he’ll be there.

I believe that we’ll see our pets there. There is nothing that I see in the Church teaching that absolutely excludes that possibility.

Happy new year my friend
Steve
 
I have wondered what the Church’s view on evolution and have read some of the posts in this thread. I’m still confused. Is the Church’s view that God inserted a soul into Adam who was evolved from an ape and that’s what began mankind? How does that explain recent discoveries of man from 60,000 years ago along with pottery and/or knife like objects as well as drawings on walls from that time?

Last week I tried to figure out the timeline from Adam to Abram by using Genesis’ ages used for each man and I came up with over 11,000 years. I was having a problem determining the timeline from Abram to Jesus, though.
:confused:
 
irishcolleen45 said:
Last week I tried to figure out the timeline from Adam to Abram by using Genesis’ ages used for each man and I came up with over 11,000 years. I was having a problem determining the timeline from Abram to Jesus, though.
:confused:
Click to expand...
It is not clear that the Genesis genealogies are complete. For example, look at Matthew 1:1 “The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham” Any timeline you worked out on that basis would come up very short. You cannot be sure that there are no gaps in Biblical genealogies.

rossum
 
rossum said:
It is not clear that the Genesis genealogies are complete. For example, look at Matthew 1:1 “The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham” Any timeline you worked out on that basis would come up very short. You cannot be sure that there are no gaps in Biblical genealogies.

rossum
Click to expand...
The timline from Adam and Abram seemed to be direct, that is, naming the father and then how old the father was when the son was born and how long the father lived. After Abram, the timeline seemed erratic. That’s why I couldn’t figure out the timeline from Abram to Jesus.
I realize I cannot use the bible to determine when Adam lived but I was trying to see if the claim was true that there were people alive with skills to create crafts nearly 60,000 years ago.
 
irishcolleen45 said:
I have wondered what the Church’s view on evolution and have read some of the posts in this thread. I’m still confused. Is the Church’s view that God inserted a soul into Adam who was evolved from an ape and that’s what began mankind? How does that explain recent discoveries of man from 60,000 years ago along with pottery and/or knife like objects as well as drawings on walls from that time?

Last week I tried to figure out the timeline from Adam to Abram by using Genesis’ ages used for each man and I came up with over 11,000 years. I was having a problem determining the timeline from Abram to Jesus, though.
:confused:
Click to expand...
The Church has never claimed Adam was evolved from an ape. This is a bit of mythology commonly found on the internet. Please read parts 36 and 37 of this encyclical:

vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis_en.html

All truth regarding this subject is subject to the teaching authority of the Church, to which all Catholics should be obedient.

Peace,
Ed
 
buffalo said:
A question I have been pondering for a wile - The sun emits a tremendous amount of photons around its full periphery. Where do these go? If the universe is of a spherical shape do they come back around? Do they reflect? Do they keep going on forever? If so what do we observe?
Click to expand...
First, the photons form the solar wind. The earth is protected from this by a magnetic field. The photons travel at the speed of light to the edge of the universe. Since photons are packets of energy, they could be used to accelerate a spacecraft with a ‘solar sail’ into space. There is evidence that photons can be bent in their travels by passing through magnetic fields. This includes the lensing effect astronomers say they’ve observed. Also, the same photons would lose a small amount of energy when passing through clouds of dust on their way to the edge of the universe. Lately, astronomers have noticed what they claim is an assymetrical movement of the galaxies in the universe to one particular area. It is assumed the universe has a spherical or squashed spherical shape. There appear to be two options: reflection and return (possibly at an angle, not back in a straight line), and continuation into the void beyond the edge of the universe.

Peace,
Ed
 
edwest2 said:
First, the photons form the solar wind. The earth is protected from this by a magnetic field. The photons travel at the speed of light to the edge of the universe. Since photons are packets of energy, they could be used to accelerate a spacecraft with a ‘solar sail’ into space. There is evidence that photons can be bent in their travels by passing through magnetic fields. This includes the lensing effect astronomers say they’ve observed. Also, the same photons would lose a small amount of energy when passing through clouds of dust on their way to the edge of the universe. Lately, astronomers have noticed what they claim is an assymetrical movement of the galaxies in the universe to one particular area. It is assumed the universe has a spherical or squashed spherical shape. There appear to be two options: reflection and return (possibly at an angle, not back in a straight line), and continuation into the void beyond the edge of the universe.

Peace,
Ed
Click to expand...
Hmmm - I can see the reflection but just going into the void beyond the universe? That would make the universe unbounded would it not?

Could the photons follow the curvature of the sphere and essentially return to their origin?
 
cassini said:
It is in error because nobody knows that the sun does not move around the earth, Nobody has ever proven the sun does not revolve around the earth.
Click to expand...
Cool! Geocentricism! 👍 All very well back then, but what about the fellas who’ve stood on the moon? Or the ones on that space station for months? Surely they’d notice! Do you reject deep space probes, etc,? I suppose telescopic evidence can be partially explained away…

What about flat Earth theory? Job believed in it, and so, if I remember rightly, did David - it’s in the Psalms I think (and other less obvious places hint at it, but not so firmly, so I’ll leave them out)…
 
edwest2 said:
The Church has never claimed Adam was evolved from an ape. This is a bit of mythology commonly found on the internet. Please read parts 36 and 37 of this encyclical:

vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis_en.html

All truth regarding this subject is subject to the teaching authority of the Church, to which all Catholics should be obedient.

Peace,
Ed
Click to expand...
I see that Humani Generis was written by Pope Pius XII in 1950. While truth never changes, I was wondering if there has been anything written more recently especially in light of more extensive DNA research.
Nova recently had a program on What Darwin Didn’t Know (or something like that). In the program, it mentioned that all living things have similar DNA and chimps and humans have a close match. I would like info that challenges some of the theories put forth by these scientists.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top