YEC

[Squishy]

Why should science be involved with biblical matters??? It doesn’t belong with biblical matters. As a Christian believing that the Bible is a bunch of myth seems wrong and I am not going to deny anything that is stated in the Bible.

The problem is the bible doesnt contend its self with purly spiritual matters. The early church fathers tryed to give their followers an entire world view and answer for almost everything.

Now that we have a way of verifying some of these. This is when contradictions start to appear. If you are just going to go with your bible as the font of all human knowledge and any contraditions made by science being wrong. Then your faith is going to be tested again and again. You live in a world that the scientific method has made possible. Yet you deny its ability to be correct in certain areas. You base your beliefs on what is effectivly a game of chinese whispers in book form.

I think i got the answer to my original question. So thank you for replying.

One thing i will ask. Do you teach your children that the earth is only 6000 years old. Or do you show them both sides of the agrument and let them decide on their own?

 

[anon5216]

“Ignorance of scriptures is ignorance of God” -St. Jerome

That’s his opinion.

By the way, there are many more writings around the world considered scriptures than just the Catholic Church defined canon.

Perhaps St. Jerome meant you needed to know all of them?

Source?

Who has proven this? When? What Scientists recognize this “discovery”?

“The Bible Unearthed” by Israel Finkelstein (Tel Aviv University) and Neil Silberman is a good start.

If you are genuinely curious, you can find much more.
If you just want to debunk ideas that contradict ones you cherish, start with an archeology degree and dig for yourself - or just believe what you are told to believe by the Church and ignore the rest.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

That’s his opinion.

By the way, there are many more writings around the world considered scriptures than just the Catholic Church defined canon.

Perhaps St. Jerome meant you needed to know all of them?

“The Bible Unearthed” by Israel Finkelstein (Tel Aviv University) and Neil Silberman is a good start.

If you are genuinely curious, you can find much more.
If you just want to debunk ideas that contradict ones you cherish, start with an archeology degree and dig for yourself - or just believe what you are told to believe by the Church and ignore the rest.

people with axes to grind generally arent the ones you go to for unbiased information.

though i am curious what you think other scriptures are?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

The problem is the bible doesnt contend its self with purly spiritual matters. The early church fathers tryed to give their followers an entire world view and answer for almost everything.

Now that we have a way of verifying some of these. This is when contradictions start to appear. If you are just going to go with your bible as the font of all human knowledge and any contraditions made by science being wrong. Then your faith is going to be tested again and again. You live in a world that the scientific method has made possible. Yet you deny its ability to be correct in certain areas. You base your beliefs on what is effectivly a game of chinese whispers in book form.

I think i got the answer to my original question. So thank you for replying.

One thing i will ask. Do you teach your children that the earth is only 6000 years old. Or do you show them both sides of the agrument and let them decide on their own?

i think you misunderstand the point, science does not disagree with faith.

a literal reading of scripture is a protestant methodology.

 

[Squishy]

i think you misunderstand the point, science does not disagree with faith.

a literal reading of scripture is a protestant methodology.

Yet some catholics still subscribe to it.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Yet some catholics still subscribe to it.

not by any official, or unofficial position of the church. its all their personal belief.

for protestants, they feel its a necessary support for sola scriptura, we dont have that problem.

 

[buffalo]

That’s his opinion.

By the way, there are many more writings around the world considered scriptures than just the Catholic Church defined canon.

Perhaps St. Jerome meant you needed to know all of them?

“The Bible Unearthed” by Israel Finkelstein (Tel Aviv University) and Neil Silberman is a good start.

If you are genuinely curious, you can find much more.
If you just want to debunk ideas that contradict ones you cherish, start with an archeology degree and dig for yourself - or just believe what you are told to believe by the Church and ignore the rest.

Biblical Archaeology:
Evidence of the Exodus from Egypt

New Evidence from Egypt on the Location of the Exodus Sea Crossing: Part II

Digging out the truth of Exodus

THE HUMAN LANDSCAPE:
CAMPING SITES AND OTHER STRUCTURES FROM THE BRONZE AGE

 

[tobinatorstark]

The problem is the bible doesnt contend its self with purly spiritual matters. The early church fathers tryed to give their followers an entire world view and answer for almost everything.

Now that we have a way of verifying some of these. This is when contradictions start to appear. If you are just going to go with your bible as the font of all human knowledge and any contraditions made by science being wrong. Then your faith is going to be tested again and again. You live in a world that the scientific method has made possible. Yet you deny its ability to be correct in certain areas. You base your beliefs on what is effectivly a game of chinese whispers in book form.

I think i got the answer to my original question. So thank you for replying.

One thing i will ask. Do you teach your children that the earth is only 6000 years old. Or do you show them both sides of the agrument and let them decide on their own?

The Bible is very spiritual and does deal with spiritual matters. As Christians we should embrace science because we do need science in matters of health among others, but not within biblical matters. I don’t have any children at the present time.

 

[tobinatorstark]

That’s his opinion.

But it is the truth, I can’t deny any of God’s words BTW do you believe in God??? Your profile doesn’t indicate a religion

 

[rossum]

What are the non-historical parts of the Bible?

The Song of Solomon, much of the Psalms, Proverbs, Job, much of Leviticus, much of Deuteronomy and so forth.

For myself the early parts of Genesis are also non-historical because there is no way that things like the flood etc. can be historical. I would be interested to see if you have any archaeological proof of Adam, Eve or of Noah’s flood.

rossum

 

[tobinatorstark]

The Song of Solomon, much of the Psalms, Proverbs, Job, much of Leviticus, much of Deuteronomy and so forth.

For myself the early parts of Genesis are also non-historical because there is no way that things like the flood etc. can be historical. I would be interested to see if you have any archaeological proof of Adam, Eve or of Noah’s flood.

rossum

Psalms are direct prayer to God. Are you implying that King David didn’t exist and that didn’t pray those words to God

 

[rossum]

Psalms are direct prayer to God. Are you implying that King David didn’t exist and that didn’t pray those words to God

No, I am saying that much of the content of Psalms is not amenable to archaeological proof. Psalms is not a book of history, it is a book of hymns. You would not expect to find much history in a hymnbook.

rossum

 

[buffalo]

No, I am saying that much of the content of Psalms is not amenable to archaeological proof. Psalms is not a book of history, it is a book of hymns. You would not expect to find much history in a hymnbook.

rossum

We sing God Bless America - If millions of years in the future archaeolgists were digging around and found no other evidence of America except a hymnal with this song in it would this make this reference non-historical?

 

[edwest2]

The problem is the bible doesnt contend its self with purly spiritual matters. The early church fathers tryed to give their followers an entire world view and answer for almost everything.

Now that we have a way of verifying some of these. This is when contradictions start to appear. If you are just going to go with your bible as the font of all human knowledge and any contraditions made by science being wrong. Then your faith is going to be tested again and again. You live in a world that the scientific method has made possible. Yet you deny its ability to be correct in certain areas. You base your beliefs on what is effectivly a game of chinese whispers in book form.

I think i got the answer to my original question. So thank you for replying.

One thing i will ask. Do you teach your children that the earth is only 6000 years old. Or do you show them both sides of the agrument and let them decide on their own?

Science is only a method for gaining certain kinds of information. As Jesus said, What is born of the flesh is flesh, what is born of the spirit is spirit. Catholics have been born into a spiritual relationship with God, we do not live by bread alone.

It would be profitable for you to follow Christ, both in this life and for the promise of the life to come.

Peace,
Ed

 

[DavWan]

No, I am saying that much of the content of Psalms is not amenable to archaeological proof. Psalms is not a book of history, it is a book of hymns. You would not expect to find much history in a hymnbook.

rossum

So what you have here is an amphiboly on the use of the word history, using the word in a meaning that a believer in the Bible does not hold (or at least ought not to hold). You would be correct that Psalms is not a work seeking to relate history. You would be incorrect to say they were not grounded in the events of history (prayers in response to events around them).

Laws in Leviticus and Deuteronomy would not be expressing history, but they would have existed in history.

So there is a large difference between reading the Bible while understanding each Book as it was intended to be read and thinking every word in Scripture was intended to be literal history

 

[rossum]

We sing God Bless America - If millions of years in the future archaeolgists were digging around and found no other evidence of America except a hymnal with this song in it would this make this reference non-historical?

The reference to “America” would be amenable to archaeological confirmation. The references to “God” and “bless” are not amenable to such confirmation.

My point is that just because some parts of the Bible are confirmed by archaeology that does not imply that all parts of the Bible are confirmed by archaeology.

Some parts of Homer are confirmed by archaeology, that does not mean that all parts of Homer are confirmed by archaeology. For example, the finding of the city of Troy does not confirm the existence of Zeus, despite both Troy and Zeus being mentioned by Homer.

rossum

 

[buffalo]

The reference to “America” would be amenable to archaeological confirmation. The references to “God” and “bless” are not amenable to such confirmation.

My point is that just because some parts of the Bible are confirmed by archaeology that does not imply that all parts of the Bible are confirmed by archaeology.

Some parts of Homer are confirmed by archaeology, that does not mean that all parts of Homer are confirmed by archaeology. For example, the finding of the city of Troy does not confirm the existence of Zeus, despite both Troy and Zeus being mentioned by Homer.

rossum

We are in general agreement.

 

[anon5216]

people with axes to grind generally arent the ones you go to for unbiased information.

Are you saying “The Bible Unearthed” by Israel Finkelstein (Tel Aviv University) and Neil Silberman is just a book by two jews with an axe to grind? If so, why to you say that?

though i am curious what you think other scriptures are?

Every religion has writings they consider scripture.
I myself am drawn to the spiritual teachings of India.

 

[anon5216]

But it is the truth, I can’t deny any of God’s words BTW do you believe in God??? Your profile doesn’t indicate a religion

But you are defining what equals God’s words. At the very least, you are simply accepting some other human’s assertions of what are God’s words.

What you are affirming or denying is only your own beliefs of what is Truth.

Do I believe in God? Doesn’t my signature answer that?

My profile indicates I’m a former Catholic now interested in Indian spirituality. Indian spirituality has been around far longer than Catholicism and yes, very much is concerned with God and our relationship with Him. And no, I am not a member of any organized religious group.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Do I believe in God? Doesn’t my signature answer that?

.

not at all, its clearly antethical to monotheism. hinduism is a far cry from belief in anything Catholics would recognize as G-d.