Poll: The creation narrative in Genesis is scientifically and historically accurate down to the last detail, including 6 literal 24-hour days. Yes or No?
You do not have permission to vote in this poll.
20
0%
0 0%
12
0%
0 0%
75
0%
0 0%
Total 0 vote(s) 0%
* You voted for this item. [Show Results]

Are Trads Required to be Biblical Literalists?
#21
(05-06-2011, 11:47 AM)timoose Wrote: Is the third option exactly as you want it ?  It doesn't make sense the way it is expressed to me, but that's just me. I voted for No.1, the Fathers, I have been told, all agree it was six, twenty-four hour days. The Geneticists place a single woman as mother of us all some where between 12,500 to 7,500 years ago. They even called her Eve .  Gerald Schroeder has given me a way to understand the contradiction concerning the age of the world as billions and billions of years ala Carl Sagan, and a much shorter reality.

As a bit of  humor, I watched PBS last night and Allan Alda was on and exploring the neandrathals. He couldn't understand how the could have been so many years on the earth and never change their technology. This is liberal psycho babble for they apparently did not Evolve.

  tim.

Schroeder ftw
Reply
#22
(05-06-2011, 04:54 PM)newyorkcatholic Wrote: I voted #3.  There is a reason there are the clearest pronouncements from the Chuch regarding God creating the world ex nihilo, the Fall, and so on, but not about 6 24-hour days.

It's also not clear, if we are literalists, how to reconcile Genesis 1 with Genesis 2.

This, especially the point about Genesis 1 & 2.
Reply
#23
Randomguy, what des ftw mean ?

tim
Reply
#24
(05-06-2011, 05:31 PM)timoose Wrote: Randomguy, what des ftw mean ?

tim

For The Win.
Reply
#25
(05-06-2011, 05:44 PM)K3vinhood Wrote:
(05-06-2011, 05:31 PM)timoose Wrote: Randomguy, what des ftw mean ?

tim

For The Win.

That's still a bit cryptic, but after doing some research, I think it means that he is endorsing timoose's endorsement of Schroeder. I also recommended Schroeder's book to someone in another thread. It's an interesting book.
Reply
#26
This...

(05-06-2011, 12:35 PM)moneil Wrote: Whether the actual creation of the world happened in six days, six decades, six centuries, or six millennia I don’t know, I don’t care, and it doesn’t matter to me, or my faith.

Whether Adam came from the earth and Eve from the rib, or they were beamed down from the celestial kingdom, or at some point two primordial human ancestors were infused with souls I don’t know, I don’t care, and it doesn’t matter to me, or my faith.

I always look forward to science giving us a better understanding of our physical world and how it works (I speak of verifiable results and discoveries, not hypothesis, but in the scientific method a hypothesis always precedes the investigation and discovery).  Science has yet to come up with anything to rattle my faith on essential matters.

... and...

(05-06-2011, 03:30 PM)SaintSebastian Wrote: In St. Augustine's work, the Liternal Meaning of Genesis (cited earlier by Aragon), the explanation I found most interesting explains how a very old universe is compatible with the shorter history of man.  In Book 6 on the creation of man, he explains the idea that the six days represent not literal days, but a scheme or plan of creation. The actual creation during those “days” was instantaneous and of things in potency and causation, but not necessarily their final visible form which would be shaped later over time. For example, he places the actual formation of man’s body after the seventh day:

St. Augustine Wrote:“There can be no doubt, then, that the work whereby man was formed from the slime of the earth and a wife fashioned for him from his side belongs not to that creation by which all thing were made together, after completing which, God rested, but to that work of God which takes place with the unfolding of the ages as He works even now.”

... and...

(05-06-2011, 04:48 PM)Rosarium Wrote: I think the question is meaningless, because of the Fall.

Our entire way of looking at the world is through fallen eyes. We live in the rubble.

What was "time" like before the fall? What was life like? What changed and what didn't change because of the fall?

We do not know.

Personally, I think we cannot image it. It was not two naked people in a garden, but two creations of God, created in His image, living in a pure world full of life without any disorder which was suddenly destroyed by sin, forever altering the world.

I do not think God created a world which followed the rules of chaos and death which govern it now. This is the problem. All cosmic and biological observations are governed by death and chaos. For this reason, I do not think we can use "evidence" to reconstruct history reliably because we are missing a crucial part.

.. are the best answers to the questions of creation, as well as anytime anyone said that we as Catholics believe what the Church teaches.

For my part, I grew up being taught that the earth was billions of years old and that evolution was at least possibly true. I had no problem reconciling God and creation with evolution, an old universe, or anything of the like. I don't see how anyone could - unless they subscribe to private interpretation of Scripture and reject (or are ignorant of) Catholic teaching on such things. It's not hard to see how Protestantism ruined Christianity with man-made gibberish such as Sola Scriptura.

Nothing I have ever observed as regards scientific research has ever caused my faith the slightest trouble. There's no reason for it to.
Reply
#27
No, we're not required to be biblical literalists:

Pontifical Biblical Commission Wrote:Question VIII: Whether in that designation and distinction of six days, with which the account of the first chapter of Genesis deals, the word (dies) can be assumed either in its proper sense as a natural day, or in the improper sense of a certain space of time; and whether with regard to such a question there can be free disagreement among exegetes?  --  Reply: In the affirmative.

- 30 June 1909 (Denz. 2128).

http://www.catecheticsonline.com/SourcesofDogma22.php
Reply
#28
I learned most of my Physics in the late sixties from a Dr. Momose, he was a Fillipino. There wasn't anything about string theory or quantam physics. Moreover I'm a geometrician like Einstein so I can absorb what Schoerdor is saying. I first ran into him on Zola Levit. Zola was Protestant Jew with a Bible in his hand all the time, with the usual proclivity for certain heresies from the Prots. Schroeder was a Jew, but peculiar he was a Tanak totting one, and not very fond of the Talmud. He wasa nuclear physicist and he was an expert for our government  concerning nuclear treaties. While both of them were not Catholics, they each had a fear of God Almighty which came through.

tim
Reply
#29
St Augustine most eloquently explains Genesis in City of God. In fact, he devotes many chapters to the first few lines of the Book of Genesis.
Reply
#30
Trads are more faithful to the Catholic tradition of biblical hermeneutics by not being biblical literalists. The literal-fundamentalist method is a Protestant innovation and it has been condemned by the Holy See.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)