B
BigRon
Guest
My point is you either believe what is written in the whole bible or you slowly start to dissect everything that is in it. Noah will be next, then the red sea escape then what?
- Status
T
thistle
Guest
Let me repeat what I said. The Bible is NOT a science book.
The Bible is a compilation of scripture that contains the religious truths necessary for our salvation.
By the way, I do not believe there was a global flood and I do not believe God created the Earth in six 24 hour periods.
Last edited:
R
rossum
Guest
He also stated in His Bible that “a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like a day.” To me that is a big red flag not to take the durations given too literally.
For an infinitely long lived God, 13.5 billion years is 0% of His lifetime, just as is 6 days also 0%.
T
tafan2
Guest
Fair enough, that argument I can understand. The argument you made previously is what I responded to, it makes no sense.
B
buffalo
Guest
Yes, as this has been constant Catholic teaching since the beginning. All Catholics are creationists, by definition.
T
tafan2
Guest
How do you account for conflicts in the Bible? Was man made before the plants if the earth Genesis chapter 2, or the plants made before man Genesis chapter 1? Did God create man and woman both on the 6th day, it on the day wait until after He had placed man in the garden?
Was the Last Supper on the Passover, or the night before?
Did Jesus feed 4000 or 5000?
Which version if the Our Father do you say, Luke’s it Mathew’s.
Was the Last Supper on the Passover, or the night before?
Did Jesus feed 4000 or 5000?
Which version if the Our Father do you say, Luke’s it Mathew’s.
Last edited:
T
tafan2
Guest
I think for these discussions, we should agree on the definition of creationism. Certainly all Catholics belief the God created the universe, all things visible and invisible. But if we define this as the definition of creationism, then this thread has no purpose. The simple answer to the title is yes, and that’s the end of the discussion.
So the definition of creationism needs to be the belief in the creation following the literal account in Genesis.
All Catholics are not creationists with this definition.
So the definition of creationism needs to be the belief in the creation following the literal account in Genesis.
All Catholics are not creationists with this definition.
B
buffalo
Guest
Gen 1 and Gen 2 are complementary. One shows the order of creation, the other the importance of man, (no issue)
There were two feeding events. (no issue)
B
buffalo
Guest
Therefore, Catholics understand this to be literal (as what the author intended to convey) and not literalistically.
We have had nearly 2,000 years of Catholic tradition and teaching on the creation account. Suddenly in the last century the Holy Spirit decided to inform us we were wrong all along? Or was the Holy Spirit just sleeping?
Last edited:
T
tafan2
Guest
No, we do not have 2000 years of interpretting Genesis literally. Augustine considered the days to be when God imparted on the Angles the knowledge of His creation.
T
tafan2
Guest
While I agree the two accounts are given in order to highlight difference things, you cannot get off that easily if you interpret Genesis as a literal historical account. If the two versions are each historically accurate account, then while they can include/exclude or stress different details, they cannot be in conflict when constructing the historical narrative. They clearly are. You have to choose: which came first plants or humans? In choosing one, you have to admit that Genesis is not always historically accurate.
B
buffalo
Guest
There is much more to St Augustine.
Of course, what we mean by the ‘days’ we know in experience are those that have a morning because the sun rises and evening because the sun sets. But the first three ‘days’ of creation passed without the benefit of sun, since, according to Scripture, the sun was made on the fourth day. Of course, there is mention in the beginning that ‘light’ was made by the Word of God, and that God separated it from the darkness, calling the light day and the darkness night. But no experience of our senses can tell us just what kind of ‘light’ it was and by what alternating movement it caused ‘morning’ and ‘evening’. Not even our intellects can comprehend what is meant, yet we can have no hesitation in believing the fact . ( City of God , XI, 7
and
And please let nobody assume that what I have said about spiritual light… that none of this can be said strictly and properly, but that it all belongs to a kind of figurative and allegorical understanding of day and evening and morning. Certainly it is different from our usual way of talking about this bodily light of every day, but that does not mean that here we have the strict and proper, there just metaphorical, use of these terms ( Lit. Mean. Gen. IV, 45(28))
Last edited:
I
Ilkka
Guest
I don’t know. I’m kind of in between the two: theistic evolutionism and creationism.
What is pulling me towards creationism, though, is the underlying fundamental dilemma that if we were created by means of evolution, that would mean that millions of years of deaths would have taken place. But I understand that humans in paradise were immortal and death itself wasn’t part of life on Earth before Adam and Eve sinned. This is a problem I think needs answering.
Please tell me what you think about this. I’m willing to listen to thoughts from Catholics only, though.
What is pulling me towards creationism, though, is the underlying fundamental dilemma that if we were created by means of evolution, that would mean that millions of years of deaths would have taken place. But I understand that humans in paradise were immortal and death itself wasn’t part of life on Earth before Adam and Eve sinned. This is a problem I think needs answering.
Please tell me what you think about this. I’m willing to listen to thoughts from Catholics only, though.
Last edited:
G
goout
Guest
Metaphor and the literal sense of the bible are not at odds with one another. The bible is a book. That’s what the word biblios means. The whole thing is literal. And the bible also contains poetry, and metaphor, allegory, parable, history. Etc…goout:
I think you are about at least one part though, no (along with me)? The resurrection is sort of a key part of the story that you have to take literally, right? It’s not a metaphor is it?
So I’ll ask again - at what point in the Bible does the metaphor stop, and the literal truth begin? (I’m guessing the whole whale thing is deep in metaphorical territory?)
You ask about the resurrection. I believe that Christ rose from the dead. I believe the testimony of the nascent Church that is recorded in Scripture. There are varying accounts of the resurrection. Which one is most rigidly factual? I don’t know and never will, and that’s not the point.
I trust the continuous thought of the Church, along with prayer, to bring the scriptures alive in Christ. The Scriptures reveal Christ, they are not an end in themselves.
Last edited:
N
niceatheist
Guest
If you choose to interpret Genesis literally then you’re rejecting a large body of science. It’s that simple.
G
goout
Guest
How am I constraining God to time by observing with mainstream science the age of the earth?niceatheist:
Two days after God created Adam he was two years old but seemed like an adult?
So why are you yourself putting a time on Him by agreeing with the extremely old Earth theory?
B
buffalo
Guest
Science is provisional.
G
goout
Guest
What does your common sense tell you:niceatheist:
Science is provisional.
Is there a hammered metal dome over the sky? And if you say yes due to it’s reference in Genesis, and if you tell others a hammered metal dome surely covers the sky, are you fulfilling your Christian duty to evangelize well?
Last edited:
R
rossum
Guest
So is much theology. Attended any good witch burnings recently? You could always burn a heretic instead if there aren’t enough witches to go round.
Interpretations of the Bible have changed over time, just ask Giordano Bruno.
T
TULIPed
Guest
We are in violent agreement.
Once again, you’re preaching to the choir.
No quarrel here (although I’d bet my definition of “Church” is perhaps a bit broader than yours, but that’s a battle for another day - or thread).
The question remains - the Bible is full of miraculous events - by definition (mostly) - exclude scientific explanation. Said another way - if science could explain them, they wouldn’t be miracles. And now we come to the point of the thread - Creation.
I would argue that the story of an all powerful, omnipotent and eternal being creating all that we see from nothing, calling it good and blessing all creation is - well - miraculous. Perhaps some of us - Catholics and Protestants - make the miracle more miraculous. For the love of Pete why can’t we just say, “I disagree Bro - but more power to you.” It feels like today, we always have to throw some snark in there too.
I’m not saying you’re doing this goout. I get it - you’re not being pejorative about those folks. Fair enough. I do think though that the OP set the thread out in that direction. If I’m incorrect OP, my apologies.
I surrender my soap box.
- Status