Why don't Catholic Q&A people answer my question?

[Crumpy]

You cant even take Genesis at face value for ages as it couldnt even get mans average age correct :-

(a) God decided that the life span of humans will be limited to 120 years (Genesis 6:3)

(b) Many people born after that lived longer than 120. Arpachshad lived 438 years. His son Shelah lived
433 years. His son Eber lived 464 years, etc. (Genesis 11:12-16)

I can see what you wrote and I looked it up, you are correct. But, the trend in Genesis was towards reporting shorter life spans. Your expectation is that the limit is 120 years starting at ch 6 v 3, and you are simply wrong. God, as it were, did not give an explicit implementation date for his command.

I don’t recall exactly where in the psalms, but they give even a shorter life span with some leeway for exceptional health.

The Catholic Church (for example in Dei Verbum, the dogmatic constitution on Sacred Scripture), and Pope Benedict XVI (in his book Jesus of Nazareth) talk about not interpreting verses in isolation, as you are doing here. You must compare that with the rest of the Bible before you leap to any particular conclusions.

Nevertheless, your statements are good “hypotheses” for investigation.

And, uppermost, what is your point? Yes, the life spans in Genesis are very interesting, aren’t they? It’s a fact, I’ve never heard a good explanation for them either. That’s no reason to doubt them, though, in my mind. My mind is simply too small to comprehend the mystery and truth that is contained in that part of Genesis.

Go to Gen 1,1, which goes something like this: In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.

See? Genesis is not a science book. It’s a theological book, about God. The focus is on theology.

In the garden of Eden, supposedly by eating from the tree of life, one’s life span would be extended, perhaps indefinitely. In being expelled from Eden, Adam and Eve were barred from this tree of life and condemned by their sin to death. The good news, John 3:16. Have you read it?

 

[KAL]

Ambrose SJ,

With regard to this response "That question makes about as much sense as asking a scientist to make an educated guess as to how transubstantiation is possible. "

How dare you to be so insensitive on this forum. Why the moderator will probably have words with you. You are not supposed to be sarcastic, or, in any way, demeaning, to any of the wonderful people in this forum. Shame on you!!

 

[KSU]

Crumpy, the wife and I are off to dinner just now, but I will get back to you. I have not ignored what you say–far from it.

 

[KSU]

Crumpy, I assure you that, while I am an insensitive lout, I have not ignored your comments. They confirm and amplify my own thoughts and beliefs, but it would appear from some of your comments that you think I need a grade school introduction to the Bible and science: viz.

• I’m not even sure why you are interested. DNA analysis has given a lot of information about the origins of human groups in SE Africa.
• The time estimates go back about 50-60,000 years.
• The Catechism of the Catholic Church says that Genesis is a figurative account, based on pre-historic real events.
• It is not a history book or a science book, as we understand them in the modern sense.
• May I mention that there is a bit of a “tone” in your question, disparaging people here and there.
• It appears that you impose a condition or restriction that scripture provide you with the total of years since creation, which is a matter that is not exhaustively or definitively given in the text of scripture.

My friend, I deeply appreciate all the time you took to tell me about science and the raison the tier of scripture. My question, however poorly worded, was meant to precipitate discussion of the possibility that the Church, i.e., its anthropical scientists, aided even slightly perhaps by the begats, etc., has an unofficial consensus as to the age of mankind, at least in terms of tens of thousands of years.

I was hoping there was a Vatican insider on this site who would confirm my suspicion that there may be such an unofficial consensus. However, the only consensus thus far seems to be akin to “Don’t be an idiot.” OK. I asked for it.

Admittedly, I was wondering if it were possible that my question fell into something like the Copernican (heliocentric) theory-before-scientific-proof category. You will recall that although there had been an unwritten, unofficial consensus in 1616 (the Galileo trail) that Copernicus may have been correct, the Church Herself had to be true to the scientific process–as the brilliant but flaming bore, Galileo, had not been, despite his sacred promise to wait for scientific proof before teaching the theory as fact. Ironic, huh? The Church gets blasted for being anti-scientific, and Galileo is a hero to Church-haters.

Well, since we have some pretty brilliant Catholic anthropical scientists today, I was hoping… You get the point. And, please, my friend, don’t think I am “outraged” at anybody. That you would think so because I did not reply directly to you is a bit disconcerting, especially when the exact opposite is true. I am grateful for your (name removed by moderator)ut.

Finally, Crumpy, alluding to one of my comments, you say, “Catholics are cowardly? Gee, and nobody else is?”

I meant every word of what I told COPLAND 3 about some modern Catholics wallowing in cowardliness. How about these examples as starters:

*A well-respected, very high-placed Church leader in the U.S. hides the requested answer from Rome regarding the denial of Communion to powerful “Catholic” politicians who continually, publicly champion abortion, until AFTER the national elections.

*Pastors afraid to tell their flocks that birth control and Communion without Confession and a firm commitment to shape up is sacrilege.

*Bishops afraid to reign in wayward priests who scandalize by perverting the liturgy.

*Vagina Monologs and similar filth, contraceptives, homosexuality support, abortion info, etc., etc. openly available on Catholic campuses, with Bishops acting like the three blind mice.

I have a LOT more, Crumpy, and so do you, but this is not the place for it. If you (or COPLAND 3) are saying that I believe people who never answered my question are cowards, you are wrong. If I thought that, I would say so. In a few years I will have lived three quarters of a century, so I fear only angering God (and some snakes).

 

[COPLAND_3]

KSU

I don’t just feel that way; it’s an absolute fact. Even Peter wasn’t immune, so it should not be surprising that some modern Catholics with less faith absolutely wallow in cowardness.

I am sorry, I can’t relate. I try to confront any tough question concerning my Faith. And as for Catholics on here I have seen many of them do the same. Granted, there are tons of those who call themselves Catholics but are clueless about our Lord. But there is a difference between using unbridled and careless speculations about something as important as God’s Word than being cautious and using reverence while contemplating on Divine mysteries. That is why many extremely bright non-religious folks out there are turned off by Bible study is because there are some wacked out Bible formulations that have been layed out there by those who misuse God’s Word. But you are entitled to your opinion about Catholics.

 

[COPLAND_3]

Finally, Crumpy, alluding to one of my comments, you say, “Catholics are cowardly? Gee, and nobody else is?”

I meant every word of what I told COPLAND 3 about some modern Catholics wallowing in cowardliness. How about these examples as starters:

*A well-respected, very high-placed Church leader in the U.S. hides the requested answer from Rome regarding the denial of Communion to powerful “Catholic” politicians who continually, publicly champion abortion, until AFTER the national elections.

*Pastors afraid to tell their flocks that birth control and Communion without Confession and a firm commitment to shape up is sacrilege.

*Bishops afraid to reign in wayward priests who scandalize by perverting the liturgy.

*Vagina Monologs and similar filth, contraceptives, homosexuality support, abortion info, etc., etc. openly available on Catholic campuses, with Bishops acting like the three blind mice.

I have a LOT more, Crumpy, and so do you, but this is not the place for it. If you (or COPLAND 3) are saying that I believe people who never answered my question are cowards, you are wrong. If I thought that, I would say so. In a few years I will have lived three quarters of a century, so I fear only angering God (and some snakes).

I get that! Sure there are yellow-bellies in the Church. The only thing I was having trouble with was the thought that cowardness is a Catholic thing. But it is not just a Catholic thing, it is a human thing. You have your fearless leaders in the Catholic Church just like any other body of believers.

 

[KSU]

COPLAND 3, I could not agree more with your last comment. The fact is that practicing, orthodox Catholics are among the LEAST cowardly people on the face of the earth. Taking advantage of the gifts offered by the Holy Spirit will have that effect.

I neither raised nor contemplated discussing the subject of cowardliness. But (having to bear the cross of being born a Catholic “son of thunder”) neither did I back away from it when, out of the blue, you said, “I get the sense that you feel as if Catholics are sort of too cowardly to deal with some topics.”

It was not my intent to give you that sense, nor do I think authentic Catholics as a group are cowardly. I have lived long enough to know the opposite to be true.

 

[COPLAND_3]

KSU

Thank you for clarifying that, I highly respect where you are coming from!

 

[ROBIN97]

No, it’s not possible from scripture.

I’m not even sure why you are interested. DNA analysis has given a lot of information about the origins of human groups in SE Africa – hint, we’re all African descendents, no matter what our skin color.

The time estimates go back about 50-60,000 years.

You are 13.7 billion years old, at least. The matter in your body originated in the big bang, if not before bb. Your biological age is the commonly accepted birth date, which you can see, is very relative.

For shame. The most recent revision of the big bang - the beginning of time is actually around 13.3 billion years. We are truly children of the stars - and made of star material created shortly after the big bang.

 

[puzzleannie]

why do you come here to question decisions made on another site?

 

[KSU]

why do you come here to question decisions made on another site?

Hi puzzleannie, was your question for me?

 

[StevenFrancis]

I haven’t read all the response posts, but I’d venture a guess, that most of them from the Catholics will simply inform you that we are open to the evolving findings of science regarding the age of man. I dont’ see that as an evasion of the question. The ‘when’ of it all is not specific in scripture or tradition. The use of numbers of ‘years’ in the bible, and even the use of ‘days’ in the beginning passages of Genesis are undefined periods of time. It’s the events, relationships, and interaction between God and his people which are important. Try not to get hung up too much on specific dates or years. Man came into being at the creation and pleasure of God. This is the important meaning. When? Science moves closer all the time to helping us discover that. There just isn’t much in the way of contention between the Catholic church and science. Sorry. If you’re looking for a deep argument about this kind of thing, you might try a more fundamentalist form of Christianity. Some of them must have forums. All a Catholic can do is venture a opinion as an individual citizen. You can get as many answers from Catholics to these questions, as there are Catholics. Including mine which is that it is relatively unimportant ‘when’ all this happened, and I am more deeply moved by the relationships described between God and man. The content of those relationships.

Peace, friend…

Steven

 

[KSU]

Thanks, Steven. I am an orthodox Catholic and already knew that.

My poorly worded question concerned not chat room Catholic forums like this one, but the more (and I mean no disrespect whatsoever to you) professional folks at sites such as my beloved EWTN or Ask An Apologist. My question did not make that clear.

There are some pretty darn good Catholic scientists who, using the Bible, Tradition and science, might have been able to suspect that it was possible to narrow the age of modern man down a bit from that in your correct answer. That’s all I was getting at.

But, again, thank you, sincerely. And read the entire thread. It’s at least entertaining.

 

[jmcrae]

I didn’t know Moses was Catholic. I guess the Church is older than I thought.

The Church as People of God began with Adam.

The Christian Covenant of the Church (aka the Catholic Church) began with Christ.

 

[Ignatius]

For the last few years I have asked EWTN and you to answer this question: Is it possible for the Church make an educated guess as to the age of mankind?

Scripture, it would seem, gives a sort of “begat” history as to how many thousands of years ago Adam and Eve lived–10, 20, 30, 40 thousand years ago? If that assumption on my part is not true, it would be nice if, at least, I could get a “no it’s not possible.”

Is there something about my question that makes folks like you run away from it?

Please feel free to edit my question or at least send me an e-mail telling me not to hold my breath waiting for a reply.

Thanks and God bless this great site.

Hi KSU and welcome. These questions have been asked and answered dozens if not hundreds of times. We just get tired of answering the same questions over and over again.

Do a search here, or on New Advent, or the Vatican site and you’ll find that these questions are addressed thoroughly many times over.

The answer you will find is basically this: “The job of The Church and the Bible is salvation, not archeology!” How long ago Eve lived is irrelevant to our salvation and therefore is not the subject of the Church and the Bible. The purpose of Sacred Scripture is to enlighten us about God, His love for us and the path to eternal Salvation.

God bless.

 

[puzzleannie]

Hi puzzleannie, was your question for me?

yes, you said you had an issue with EWTN, I am just curious why you think anyone here can explain their policy or actions to your satisfaction. everyone of their experts posts contact info, so it should not be hard to ask them directly.

searching past questions on the EWTN site shows at least 3 discussions that address your question, so while their site is not the easiest to search, it would be worth your while.

 

[KSU]

“We just get tired of answering the same questions over and over again.”

Thank you, Ignatius, I really do understand. But I wish you would have read my replies at May 1st, 5:33 PM; May 2nd, 5:49 PM and May 3rd, 12:35 AM. With all due respect, I would be very surprised if you already discussed my question as I explained it at May 3rd, 12:35 am.

Per puzzleannie:
“…searching past questions on the EWTN site shows at least 3 discussions that address your question, so while their site is not the easiest to search, it would be worth your while.”

Thanks, but I tried that (as well as on Ask An Apologist) and found no discussion that directly addressed my unanswered question. See my May 3rd, 12:35 comment to see what I’m trying to have addressed by the insiders. Please correct me If I’m wrong; it’s very possible that I missed a reply, but all I saw was what has been reiterated here–Scripture 101–which is not the level of inquiry with which I would waste the time of EWTN or Ask An Apologist. And your understanding that I had an “issue” with EWTN is not correct.

Most people on this site (not including you) seem to think I asked in my post here the higher level question previously posed to the pros; a question to which only a few knowlegeable people would know the answer. I did not. I asked here (poorly, it appears) merely why the pros never even acknowledged my question to them.

Anyway, thank you for your reply.

 

[JimG]

For the last few years I have asked EWTN and you to answer this question: Is it possible for the Church make an educated guess as to the age of mankind?

Is that the question? If so, the answer is no.

The Church can’t make an educated guess as to the age of mankind, nor should it.
That’s not it’s business.

I don’t see the point of all this discussion about something to which the answer is clear.

 

[KSU]

Per JimG:
“The Church can’t make an educated guess as to the age of mankind, nor should it. That’s not it’s business.
I don’t see the point of all this discussion about something to which the answer is clear.”

I repeat, JimG, what you apparently did not read:
"I lived in Arlington, VA and attended Mass there in the early seventies. I recall reading a commentary in a monthly (or perhaps longer period) Mass booklet that said modern man has been around for about 35,000 years. I never again saw another Church-sponsored publication or speaker give such an estimate, and I have been wondering about it ever since.
"So, two years ago I began asking on line [to the Catholic Q&A pros] whether the Church/orthodox Catholic scientists actually had an unofficial estimate. No one gave me a reply.
"I am fully aware of what the Bible is and isn’t …[but] the Catholic Church invented, protected and nurtured what today is regarded by secularists as the great god Science. So if anyone could have an unofficial estimate of the age of modern man, why couldn’t it be faithful Catholic scientists? Ergo, what is ( apparently to you) my ridiculous question.
“If you prefer to believe in the possibility or likelihood that Adam and Eve were the great, great fore bearers of some kind of monkey that became us, knock yourself out. I don’t have a problem with that, but I prefer to know whether Catholic scientists are able to narrow that down a tad.”

And, JimG, you apparently did not read the very interesting comment from COPLAND 3 :
"Catholics have attempted to speculation how old the earth is. The Early Church Fathers did…
"Specific Statements Made by the Early Church Writers Concerning the Age of the Earth:

Clement of Alexandria c. 150- c. 215
5 592(BC) Date of Creation of Adam
Miscellanies 1.21

Julius Africanus c.160-240
5 500(BC) Date of Creation of Adam
Chronology, Fragment 1

Hippolytus of Rome 170-236
5 500(BC) Date of Creation of Adam
Daniel, 4

Origen 185-253
10 000(BC) Date of Creation of Adam
Celsus, 1.20

Eusebius of Caesarea 263-339
5 228(BC) Date of Creation of Adam
Chronicle

Augustine of Hippo 354-430
5 600(BC) Date of Creation of Adam
City 12.11 "

Now then, JimG, if my Catholic Mass booklet could make a guesstimate about the age of modern man, I don’t understand why my simply asking about it is looked upon here as frivolous or worse.

And if the above listed Church Fathers could be concerned about the age of the earth, I don’t understand why my question on the pro sites about whether there is an unofficial Catholic scientist consensus–purely secular/scientific–about the age of modern man is looked upon here as frivolous. If the Church Herself, and Her spokespersons have published positions on the material-world issues of war, immigration, when life begins and macro-evolution, etc., and rightly so, I don’t understand why some of the folks on this Scripture site seem a bit irritated at my questions.

I did not begin this topic, on this site, by asking whether there is a non-infallible Catholic scientific consensus on the age of modern man; I originally asked only why the pro sites do not answer it with at least a “no” or “we don’t know.”

Science says it has a consensus on the approximate age of modern man, so my question to the pros on other sites boiled down to, “Does the Church or ‘its’ scientists have a like consensus.”

There is no reason why I should just assume the Church agrees with the current scientific consensus. She doesn’t agree with a lot of scientific opinion–no such thing as Adam and Eve, no flood, no plagues on the Egyptians, no Red Sea parting, etc.

The Church teaches that we are free to believe that Adam was created as a monkey a million years ago or as some kind of man X thousand years ago–our choice. So, JimG, I, unlike you, want to make a personal, private choice, and I want to base it on a combination of (1) the best science has to offer and (2) the best the Church or its trusted scientists have to offer. But I don’t yet know if the former is OK with the latter.

Others could not care less. I do care. And I think it is just as deserving a question as “Is it OK to like Hindu Music”, which was answered by the pros

 

[JimG]

I’m not sure what kind of publisher would consider it relevant to insert an estimate of the age of mankind into a ‘Mass booklet’ (or perhaps a Sunday bulletin.) But given the state of foolishness in some Catholic publishing circles in the seventies, I suppose such a thing is not impossible.

Any consensus of ‘Catholic scientists’ on the matter would involve their judgment as scientists, not their judgments as Catholics or scripture scholars, so it would not likely differ from the consensus of secular scientists.

If you want to search for a consensus of early Church Fathers on the issue, fine, as long as you realize that their opinions on scientific matters are of mainly historical interest.

So if anyone could have an unofficial estimate of the age of modern man, why couldn’t it be faithful Catholic scientists?

I’m not aware that anyone has ever polled ‘faithful Catholic scientists’ on the issue. If there were such a poll, I doubt that it would differ much from a poll of faithful Presbyterian scientists, or that it would have much meaning either for the faithful or the scientists.

But to repeat, the answer to your original question is no.