Would Creationism exist, without Protestantism?

[TomH1]

Young Earth Creationism relies on the work of [Anglican] Church of Ireland Primate James Ussher’s work Annalium pars posterior in which he calculated that the Earth had been formed at nightfall on 22nd October 4004 BC according to the Julian Calendar.

This is found among Fundamentalists and I believe dates no earlier than the early part of the last century. I don’t think it is something to which all Protestants hold. Indeed, Protestants are a large and diverse group of Christian communities. They hold a variety of beliefs. It is simply incorrect to say, ‘Protestants believe …’.

 

[GKMotley]

Been waiting for Jimmy’s name to appear.

Lightfoot made it 3929.

 

[goout]

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.

All of creation is rooted in mystery, and can be considered miraculous. None of us can explain why we exist. The problem becomes that we reduce the miraculous to “those incidents without material, factual, evidentiary…explanations”. I think you have to allow the miraculous to include everyday things which we might take for granted, but that point to God’s infinite mystery.

Science is part of the miraculous. Why does creation exist so that human beings can discover it? Why do we have the desire to discover it. Why do we have the rationality that is employed in science?

The reason this matters to me and to the Church is, biblical literalism is one of the main factors cited by people who are rejecting Christianity.
“your God kills women and children”
“Christians believe the earth is a few millenia old”
on and on

When Christians can’t articulate healthy and whole senses of revelation that include common sense scientific discovery, others are scandalized. And I think this is one of the dangers of taking the bible in isolation from the whole context of revelation.
Again, the freedom to believe something does not give one a license to be ignorant of what is revealed around us.

 

[TomH1]

I think its Ussher that Ken Ham and his ilk tend to rely on.

 

[GKMotley]

What’s 75 years among friends?

 

[TomH1]

Urm … Ken Ham’s no friend of mine

 

[GKMotley]

Oh, I meant among the YE types.

 

[TomH1]

Oh, I’m not so sure. Perhaps 75 years is enough to cause irreconcilable differences and different Fundamentalist groups.

 

[GKMotley]

You may be right.Big endians/little endians, sort of.

 

[buffalo]

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.

Sorcery is still to be avoided. The punishment is different.

 

[buffalo]

Is there a hammered metal dome over the sky?

Where does it say that?

 

[rossum]

Sorcery is still to be avoided. The punishment is different.

The punishment is specified in the Bible: the death penalty. Theology changes.

 

[rossum]

Where does it say that?

Job 37:18. Read your Bible, buffalo.

 

[buffalo]

Job 37:18. Read your Bible, buffalo.

can you, like him, stretch out the sky, tempered like a mirror of cast metal?

Keyword is - LIKE

 

[BigRon]

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?

Why don’t you read it?

 

[BigRon]

If you choose to interpret Genesis literally then you’re rejecting a large body of science. It’s that simple.

That’s fine with me. I don’t need science to teach me bout Jesus.

 

[TULIPed]

Sorcery is still to be avoided.

Except by Gandalf or Samantha. Ok - forget about Samantha, she’s not even in reruns anymore.

 

[rossum]

That’s fine with me. I don’t need science to teach me bout Jesus.

So, Jesus didn’t make the world that science studies? Do you think trees have hands that they clap? See Isaiah 55:12 “For you shall go out in joy and be led back in peace; the mountains and the hills before you shall burst into song, and all the trees of the field shall clap their hands,”

Do we follow science on that passage or do we follow the Bible?

 

[tafan2]

Perhaps you don’t understand the reason for my questions. You said

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?

If you adopt this literalists approach to Genesis as a historical text, then you have to choose which if the two accounts us accurate, and reject (from a historical viewpoint) parts of the other account. That seems like quite a delima for someone who insists the Bible is an unerring historical text.

 

[buffalo]

Do we follow science on that passage or do we follow the Bible?

The Bible as to what the author intended to convey. This is basic literal vs literalistic. Don’t forget you are on a Catholic site.