YEC

[tobinatorstark]

I am seriously curious. Why can’t you accept the Bible as wonderful inspiring literature and then accept science as just the facts of natural life.

The Bible is more than inspiring literature. The Bible is God’s word. What don’t people understand that. They deny that it is God’s word, they deny God. I frankly don’t care what people think. Why should I? If we had more priests like Fr. Corapi, we’d be better off. I accept science because we are called to embrace science in man ways. Science isn’t always factual. It is trial and error. If you don’t like that, I really don’t give a rat’s behind. I stand by my beliefs. I am not going to change your opinion and you sir, will not be able to change mine.

 

[edwest2]

I am seriously curious. Why can’t you accept the Bible as wonderful inspiring literature and then accept science as just the facts of natural life.

The Holy Bible is not literature. It is the inspired Word of God. All prophecy was given by God and not by the will of the speaker. Nature has no will or pesonality, only the Living God has a will and a personality. All of nature was created by God and nothing was created without Him.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Namesake]

The Holy Bible is not literature. It is the inspired Word of God. All prophecy was given by God and not by the will of the speaker. Nature has no will or pesonality, only the Living God has a will and a personality. All of nature was created by God and nothing was created without Him.

Peace,
Ed

I bet you don’t really mean that only God has a will and a personality. People have a will and a personality too, don’t they?

Wouldn’t it be easy to think that people who wrote the Bible might have exercised some of that will and personality? Maybe they would do that in a way that was in keeping with the message God wanted expressed but in a way that was easy for humans to understand.

Now that I think about it it seems to me that the message is the important part, not the individual words. I think the message is the word of God.

 

[edwest2]

I bet you don’t really mean that only God has a will and a personality. People have a will and a personality too, don’t they?

Wouldn’t it be easy to think that people who wrote the Bible might have exercised some of that will and personality? Maybe they would do that in a way that was in keeping with the message God wanted expressed but in a way that was easy for humans to understand.

Now that I think about it it seems to me that the message is the important part, not the individual words. I think the message is the word of God.

People are created by God. They are willed by God. They are meant to be in a relationship with God. All the words in the Bible matter. Man does not live by bread alone but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Namesake]

People are created by God. They are willed by God. They are meant to be in a relationship with God. All the words in the Bible matter. Man does not live by bread alone but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.

Peace,
Ed

I can’t argue with Biblical literalists. I read the Bible in a different way. I think it’s all true, but not literally word for word true.

 

[tobinatorstark]

I bet you don’t really mean that only God has a will and a personality. People have a will and a personality too, don’t they?

Wouldn’t it be easy to think that people who wrote the Bible might have exercised some of that will and personality? Maybe they would do that in a way that was in keeping with the message God wanted expressed but in a way that was easy for humans to understand.

Now that I think about it it seems to me that the message is the important part, not the individual words. I think the message is the word of God.

Yes people do have will and personality too, but our will should be to do His Will. Make his will our will

 

[buffalo]

I can’t argue with Biblical literalists. I read the Bible in a different way. I think it’s all true, but not literally word for word true.

We are interpreting the Bible as the Church has since the beginning. Catholics do not practice private interpretation.

 

[wasmit]

This is what i dont understand, how on earth can the catholic church justify not making a decision one way or the other. Clearly it makes a big difference to peoples world view, and its not like its a small gap we are talking BILLIONS of years.

I know of no evidence to support YEC. But a lot of evidence to support a much older earth. Are their any YEC folks who inhabit here who can give eveidence outside of scripture for thinking the world is 6000 years old ?

here is what actually happened at the beginning of the earth:

Before time began there was no heaven, no earth and no space between. A vast dark ocean washed upon the shores of nothingness and licked the edges of night. A giant cobra floated on the waters. Asleep within its endless coils lay the Lord Vishnu. He was watched over by the mighty serpent. Everything was so peaceful and silent that Vishnu slept undisturbed by dreams or motion. From the depths a humming sound began to tremble, Om. It grew and spread, filling the emptiness and throbbing with energy. The night had ended. Vishnu awoke. As the dawn began to break, from Vishnu’s navel grew a magnificent lotus flower. In the middle of the blossom sat Vishnu’s servant, Brahma. He awaited the Lord’s command.

Vishnu spoke to his servant: ‘It is time to begin.’ Brahma bowed. Vishnu commanded: ‘Create the world.’

 

[DavWan]

here is what actually happened at the beginning of the earth:

Before time began there was no heaven, no earth and no space between. A vast dark ocean washed upon the shores of nothingness and licked the edges of night. A giant cobra floated on the waters. Asleep within its endless coils lay the Lord Vishnu. He was watched over by the mighty serpent. Everything was so peaceful and silent that Vishnu slept undisturbed by dreams or motion. From the depths a humming sound began to tremble, Om. It grew and spread, filling the emptiness and throbbing with energy. The night had ended. Vishnu awoke. As the dawn began to break, from Vishnu’s navel grew a magnificent lotus flower. In the middle of the blossom sat Vishnu’s servant, Brahma. He awaited the Lord’s command.

Vishnu spoke to his servant: ‘It is time to begin.’ Brahma bowed. Vishnu commanded: ‘Create the world.’

So you have pre-existing beings who are changable (if Vishnu could sleep or wake, he is not immutable), and a sound which acted on Vishnu (again making him changable in nature). Also, Creation seems not to have begun with Vishnu, but with the cause of what caused the flower to bloom.

Vishnu then becomes a passive figure, with the Om and Brahma acting.

Doesn’t seem compelling to me

 

[wasmit]

Sure, it might not be compelling, but it is The Truth™.

If you want to ignore The Truth™, that is fine by me.

I really like the lotus-flower-from-the-navel bit.

 

[anon5216]

Arguing that there is no proof that Scripture is inerrant, therefore it is fallible is the argumentum ad silentio.

Another logical error is begging the question. What you assume as proven but needs proof is that only part of the Scriptures is inspired. What you need to prove is twofold:

1. *]Which parts of Scripture are inspired
   *]Which parts of the Bible are not inspired
   
   Of course since you do claim the issue of fallible humans, you will need to demonstrate how your assertion is not fallible when addressing these two parts

1. 
   I’m not the one needing to do any proving.
   I’m the one questioning extraordinary claims that are not backed up.
   
   It is the makers of these extraordinary claims that need to do the proving - and not via self-referential circular arguments or resorting to “it’s a matter of faith”.

 

[tobinatorstark]

I’m not the one needing to do any proving.
I’m the one questioning extraordinary claims that are not backed up.

It is the makers of these extraordinary claims that need to do the proving - and not via self-referential circular arguments or resorting to “it’s a matter of faith”.

Yes you are the one that need some proving. NOT scientifically, Biblically.