The Lorax Posted July 27, 2007 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 183 Topics Per Day: 0.03 Content Count: 1,892 Content Per Day: 0.30 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 02/24/2007 Status: Offline Birthday: 09/07/1985 Share Posted July 27, 2007 Wouldn't Jesus have to use teminolgy that the people of the day would understand? I mean what was a fossil to them? Very good point. And what would 14 billion years (the scientific age of the universe) mean to them? They didn't even have numbers that big! The Bible's first readers simply couldn't accept a plainly written Genesis. It wouldn't make sense to them. Luckily the exact age of the universe is not terribly important to our spiritual salvation. Jesus is. That's what matters, and that's why figurative language sufficed in Genesis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kari21 Posted July 27, 2007 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 140 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 1,846 Content Per Day: 0.29 Reputation: 10 Days Won: 0 Joined: 09/04/2006 Status: Offline Birthday: 01/05/1987 Share Posted July 27, 2007 Wouldn't Jesus have to use teminolgy that the people of the day would understand? I mean what was a fossil to them? My point being, Jesus taught that Adam and Eve were created by God as written in Genesis. And that sin and death only came into the world with the fall. You cannot reconcile Genesis with evolution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fiosh Posted July 27, 2007 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 73 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 3,663 Content Per Day: 0.52 Reputation: 5 Days Won: 0 Joined: 03/20/2005 Status: Offline Share Posted July 27, 2007 This about blew me away. Is the Pope saying that the world was not created in 7 days as outlined in Genesis? http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2007/7/...1247.shtml?s=ic Nothing new here. Yep, the Pope is Catholic. Quoted from the article: "They( creationism and evolution) are presented as alternatives that exclude each other," the Pope said. "This clash is an absurdity because on one hand there is much scientific proof in favour of evolution, which appears as a reality that we must see and which enriches our understanding of life and being as such." But he said evolution did not answer all the questions. "Above all it does not answer the great philosophical question 'where does everything come from?'" ************************************************** Catholics have never been Bible literalists. We allow that Genesis "uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man." (CCC #390) The RCC does teach that at some point in history, God created Adam and Eve, our first parents, and breathed life and spirit into them. Whether He created the universe in 7 literal days; or if He worked thru evolution (which He created) over the course of millions of years, really isn't a big deal to a Catholic. We know that God did it. Period. Peace, Fiosh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
senerhu Posted July 27, 2007 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 120 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 1,661 Content Per Day: 0.23 Reputation: 10 Days Won: 0 Joined: 03/23/2004 Status: Offline Author Share Posted July 27, 2007 I think what surprised me about this is I believe, and I'm not saying I'm right just my opinion, that the pope today is a direct succession from Peter. I would have just assumed that Catholics took the literal view of the Bible. I guess it shows how little I really do know... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
forrestkc Posted August 3, 2007 Group: Royal Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 114 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 4,015 Content Per Day: 0.60 Reputation: 8 Days Won: 1 Joined: 12/15/2005 Status: Offline Share Posted August 3, 2007 The Vatican has had a pro-evolution position for some time now. I was actually gonna post this article myself. You win this round, senerhu. I had no idea that was their stance. Like I said I'm really surprised... Literal Creationism is a minority view in Christianity. The vast majority of denominations worldwide accept theistic evolution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
forrestkc Posted August 3, 2007 Group: Royal Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 114 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 4,015 Content Per Day: 0.60 Reputation: 8 Days Won: 1 Joined: 12/15/2005 Status: Offline Share Posted August 3, 2007 The Vatican has had a pro-evolution position for some time now. I was actually gonna post this article myself. You win this round, senerhu. I had no idea that was their stance. Like I said I'm really surprised... Literal Creationism is a minority view in Christianity. The vast majority of denominations worldwide accept theistic evolution. I would be careful about saying that the vast majority of denominations accept theistic evolution. The net "theistic evolution" is much too broad to be accurate. Many accept what is now being referred to as "Old Earth Creation." True "theistic evolution" and "Old Earth Creation" are not the same. To further complicate it, there are two entirely diferent doctrines that fall into "Old Earth Creation." However, neither Old Earth doctrine teaches evolution of any type. No, most of them actually accept that man and all organisms evolved through natural selection from a common ancestry, and that evolution is simply a law of God, and the events described in Genesis are largely metaphorical and refer to a primordial event very early on when modern man emerged (otherwise, the fall of man certainly happened, but Genesis is not a literal account of the origin of life) This is basically the position of virtually every mainline protestant denomination, the Catholics, Anglicans, and Orthodox Christians. Which collectively are the vast majority of the world's some 2 billion Christians. Most of them have something of a compartmentalized position, they accept science for what it tells us about our universe, and scripture for what it tells us about our faith, and they tend to just treat them like independent entities with no conflict at all with each other instead of trying reconcile the two. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
georgesbluegirl Posted August 3, 2007 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 30 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 1,234 Content Per Day: 0.17 Reputation: 7 Days Won: 0 Joined: 08/17/2004 Status: Offline Birthday: 04/10/1987 Share Posted August 3, 2007 The Vatican has had a pro-evolution position for some time now. I was actually gonna post this article myself. You win this round, senerhu. I had no idea that was their stance. Like I said I'm really surprised... Literal Creationism is a minority view in Christianity. The vast majority of denominations worldwide accept theistic evolution. I went to Catholic school. You better believe we learned evolution. I still do NOT comprehend the problem with reconciling believing in God with believing in evolution as a natural law. Neither does the Pope. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeffnevins Posted August 6, 2007 Group: Senior Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 207 Topics Per Day: 0.03 Content Count: 806 Content Per Day: 0.12 Reputation: 141 Days Won: 0 Joined: 01/09/2006 Status: Offline Birthday: 10/21/1973 Share Posted August 6, 2007 I don't consider a modern pope as an authority over God's Word. Not biblical. Some people are swayed by media figures, though. And some that blasted the pope in the past are loving his stance as another method to attack creationists. Nice weekend anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joshua-777 Posted August 6, 2007 Group: Royal Member Followers: 5 Topic Count: 410 Topics Per Day: 0.06 Content Count: 3,102 Content Per Day: 0.48 Reputation: 522 Days Won: 6 Joined: 10/19/2006 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/07/1984 Share Posted August 6, 2007 I don't consider a modern pope as an authority over God's Word. Not biblical. Some people are swayed by media figures, though. And some that blasted the pope in the past are loving his stance as another method to attack creationists. Nice weekend anyway. I agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jorge S Posted August 6, 2007 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 1 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 289 Content Per Day: 0.04 Reputation: 3 Days Won: 0 Joined: 03/03/2006 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/04/1963 Share Posted August 6, 2007 Wouldn't Jesus have to use teminolgy that the people of the day would understand? I mean what was a fossil to them? Very good point. And what would 14 billion years (the scientific age of the universe) mean to them? They didn't even have numbers that big! The Bible's first readers simply couldn't accept a plainly written Genesis. It wouldn't make sense to them. Luckily the exact age of the universe is not terribly important to our spiritual salvation. Jesus is. That's what matters, and that's why figurative language sufficed in Genesis. Ancient civilizations came accross fossils all the time as rocks were quarried for their buildings. Fossils were even exposed in their temples on occasions. The term comes from Latin (fodere, fossus) and refers to an item that has been 'dug up.' Greek poet and philosopher Xenophanes (570BC) is credited to have been the first to acknowledge what they were. Some think that exposure to fossils was responsible for folklore themes (Titans, mythologic animals) and early naturalistic (evolutionary) theories about the origins of species in Ancient Greece. Jesus, the Jewish carpenter, son of Mary and Joseph, did not have to know about them. But Jesus The Omniscient and Eternal Son of God certainly knew everything about them and everything His followers would have to endure while preaching His Word, from Paul's dealings with the Greeks through our modern debates at Worthy. Yet He did not give us any authority to 'update' Genesis. Figurative language that endorses unbelievable myths is totally different from simple language that transmits eternal truth. That's why I wholly agree with Thomas Aquinas: Nothing false underlies the literal sense of Scripture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts