Theological Problems with God-guided Evolution

[Deadworm]

On 7/22/2021 at 6:22 AM, David1701 said:

It should come as no surprise to anyone, that RC "scholarship" is more respected by unbelievers than is Christian scholarship.

No Bible supports the false teaching that the third Person of the Trinity is "Mother Earth", nor would any genuine Christian.

You apparently know nothing about modern biblical scholarship, conservative and liberal.  Biblical language gains its meaning from the prevailing culture, which is often a key to its meaning.  As monotheists use pagan imagery, but transform its meaning.   Thus, Lady Wisdom borrows from goddess imagery without affecting monotheism to make a theological point.  In the case of Prov. 8:31 that point is the ratonality of creation as divine play.  In the case of "Let the earth bring forth" the point is that God can use earth processes that He set in motion to expand creation.  

Wisdom personified overlaps with Mother Nature and can refer to another aspect of the Holy Spirit without posing an alternative in substance to the Trinity.  The vision of the virgin Mary in Rev. 12 employs Greek goddess imagery with no implication that Mary is a goddess or that pagan theology has any truth.

 

o

y

ult

e 

[The Barbarian]

On 7/24/2021 at 8:33 PM, dad2 said:

Explain how light was there before the sun if you claim the sun must be what the light was!

Most stars are older than the sun.   Thought you knew.   The Milky Way is much older than the sun.

[dad2]

3 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

Most stars are older than the sun.   Thought you knew.   The Milky Way is much older than the sun.

No. They aren't. Thought you would have known that. Go ahead and show the steps involved in assigning ages to those things. Or run away and pretend you know. Whatever.

[David1701]

13 hours ago, Deadworm said:

You apparently know nothing about modern biblical scholarship, conservative and liberal. 

I couldn't care less about Liberal "scholarship", since it's anti-Christian.  Conservative scholarship still needs to be exegetical, rather than speculative, to be any use.

 

Quote

Biblical language gains its meaning from the prevailing culture, which is often a key to its meaning.  As monotheists use pagan imagery, but transform its meaning.   Thus, Lady Wisdom borrows from goddess imagery without affecting monotheism to make a theological point.  In the case of Prov. 8:31 that point is the ratonality of creation as divine play.  In the case of "Let the earth bring forth" the point is that God can use earth processes that He set in motion to expand creation.  

This is a fine example of the speculation to which I referred.

Quote

Wisdom personified overlaps with Mother Nature and can refer to another aspect of the Holy Spirit without posing an alternative in substance to the Trinity. 

Another example of speculation (the part I've made bold).

Quote

The vision of the virgin Mary in Rev. 12 employs Greek goddess imagery with no implication that Mary is a goddess or that pagan theology has any truth.

This is Roman Catholic theology, not Christian theology.

[David1701]

On 7/25/2021 at 6:28 PM, AandW_Rootbeer said:

You indeed did give me your opinion why you believe it was influenced by the RCC, that is true.   But I looked up to see where the connection to RCC and the New Jerusalem Bible was most prevalent at, and multiple sources claim there was hardly any influence from the RCC involved.   So, I either accept your word for it or theirs.   But I do agree the term [Mother representing God] is very Catholic in meaning.

Romanism does not approve Bibles for use by its adherents, unless they support its teachings (e.g. the false teachings in the Apocrypha).

"The New Jerusalem Bible (NJB) is an English-language translation of the Bible published in 1985 by Darton, Longman and Todd and Les Editions du Cerf, edited by Henry Wansbrough and approved for use in study and personal devotion by members of the Catholic Church."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Jerusalem_Bible

The NJB was translated by Roman Catholics, for Roman Catholics and contains Roman Catholic parts (the Apocrypha) not found in Christian Bibles, except for editions for Roman Catholics.

[AandW_Rootbeer]

2 hours ago, David1701 said:

Romanism does not approve Bibles for use by its adherents, unless they support its teachings (e.g. the false teachings in the Apocrypha).

"The New Jerusalem Bible (NJB) is an English-language translation of the Bible published in 1985 by Darton, Longman and Todd and Les Editions du Cerf, edited by Henry Wansbrough and approved for use in study and personal devotion by members of the Catholic Church."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Jerusalem_Bible

The NJB was translated by Roman Catholics, for Roman Catholics and contains Roman Catholic parts (the Apocrypha) not found in Christian Bibles, except for editions for Roman Catholics.

Oh, I see where you're getting this from, WIKI, that explains it all.

 

That is about as credible of a resource as Charlie Manson's versions of his own murders.

[David1701]

28 minutes ago, AandW_Rootbeer said:

Oh, I see where you're getting this from, WIKI, that explains it all.

 

No, I'm not.  The Wiki link was for your benefit, not mine.  I've known for donkey's years that the NJB is Roman Catholic (from before Wikipedia existed...).

Why don't you just go onto a site like Amazon, look up New Jerusalem Bible, then click on "Look Inside" and read the Editor's Foreward (a glimpse at the table of contents will also show the presence of the Apocrypha (called Deuterocanonical books by Roman Catholics)).  It makes no attempt to hide the fact that it's Roman Catholic.

P.S. I also suggest that you read the introduction to the book of Genesis, in the NJB - it is packed solid with doubt ("imagery", "stories", "traditions", etc.).

P.P.S. Here's a short extract from a purchaser's review of the NJB, from the UK version of amazon.

"For Catholics there is an unnerving choice versions of the Catholic Bible. I bought several others before hitting on this one. ..."

Edited July 26, 2021 by David1701

[AandW_Rootbeer]

9 hours ago, David1701 said:

No, I'm not.  The Wiki link was for your benefit, not mine.  I've known for donkey's years that the NJB is Roman Catholic (from before Wikipedia existed...).

Why don't you just go onto a site like Amazon, look up New Jerusalem Bible, then click on "Look Inside" and read the Editor's Foreward (a glimpse at the table of contents will also show the presence of the Apocrypha (called Deuterocanonical books by Roman Catholics)).  It makes no attempt to hide the fact that it's Roman Catholic.

P.S. I also suggest that you read the introduction to the book of Genesis, in the NJB - it is packed solid with doubt ("imagery", "stories", "traditions", etc.).

P.P.S. Here's a short extract from a purchaser's review of the NJB, from the UK version of amazon.

"For Catholics there is an unnerving choice versions of the Catholic Bible. I bought several others before hitting on this one. ..."

I don't desire to argue with you concerning this matter, I am just saying multiple sources claim this Bible has very little RCC influence.   I just wanted to know why you present an argument that opposes them is all.  I have never even heard of this Bible we're discussing.   I just thought I would look it up based upon your original OP to the other poster.   And when your views and the multiple views from my search engine did not align, I wanted to bring it to your attention.   If this Bible is/or not influenced by the RC really doesn't matter to me.   I most likely will never read that Bible to begin with.

[The Barbarian]

 

Most stars are older than the sun.   Thought you knew.   The Milky Way is much older than the sun.

20 hours ago, dad2 said:

No. They aren't. 

Yes, most of the are older than the sun.  In fact, we know that the sun formed in the shockwave of a supernova explosion.   You see, all the elements heavier than lithium are formed in stars.    So those elements in the Earth are the debris from such an explosion.

God is much greater and wiser than you seem to want Him to be.

 

 

 

[The Barbarian]

18 hours ago, David1701 said:

The NJB was translated by Roman Catholics, for Roman Catholics and contains Roman Catholic parts (the Apocrypha) not found in Christian Bibles, except for editions for Roman Catholics.

Actually, the Apocrypha are in all Christian Bibles except those specifically for Protestants.     The largest body of Christians are Roman Catholics.    Eastern Orthodox Churches are the second largest body, and they never removed the Apocrypha from their Bibles, either.   It's pretty much limited to Protestants.

And not all of them...