| We hope you enjoy your visit! You're currently viewing Catholic CyberForum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our online cyberparish, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! Messages posted to this board must be polite and free of abuse, personal attacks, blasphemy, racism, threats, harrassment, and crude or sexually-explicit language. If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| Genesis; The Literal Truth? | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Tuesday, 24. August 2010, 19:30 (226 Views) | |
| Mairtin | Tuesday, 24. August 2010, 19:30 Post #1 |
|
Moved from SORS thread:But it's the bit that you and Protestant fundamentalists use to try to dismiss science.
Why say "may not have" instead of "didn't"? I'll accept it, however, as some sort of grudging admission that in actual fact He did not say anything that supports a literal reading of Genesis contrary to waht you implied earlier. (BTW, your reference to "beginning" is a red herring as the word could just as easily apply to the beginning of Mankind.) |
![]() |
|
| Mairtin | Tuesday, 24. August 2010, 19:41 Post #2 |
|
Clare, whilst searching through previous exchanges, I came upon this from the Catholic Encyclopedia:
Note the date of the decree by the Biblical Commission - 30 June, 1909. I wonder who was the Pope at that time who approved the decree ....
Edited by Mairtin, Tuesday, 24. August 2010, 19:42.
|
![]() |
|
| Gerard | Tuesday, 24. August 2010, 19:42 Post #3 |
|
It would be interesting to know what the Rabbis of the time thought. It would be even more interesting to know what Gamaliel thought. There is a chance they left something in writing. Gerry |
| "The institutional and charismatic aspects are quasi coessential to the Church's constitution" (Pope John Paul II, 1998). | |
![]() |
|
| Clare | Tuesday, 24. August 2010, 19:47 Post #4 |
|
Putting the "Fun Dame" into Fundamentalist
|
Because I do not know everything He said, as it is not all recorded in Scripture. He may well have mentioned it! I prefer not to make assertions like "Our Lord never said such and such" because we are Catholics. We are not Sola Scriptura Protestants. Everything in the Bible is true, but not everything that is true is in the Bible. |
|
S.A.G. Motes 'n' Beams blog Join in the Fun Trivia Quiz! | |
![]() |
|
| Clare | Tuesday, 24. August 2010, 19:51 Post #5 |
|
Putting the "Fun Dame" into Fundamentalist
|
Yes, and? I am at liberty to believe in six days of creation. It says so. And given that (as I understand it) the Fathers believed in six days, except St Augustine who believed it happened in an instant, and given that we are to accept what the Fathers were unanimous on, then the Fathers were unanimous on creation taking six days or fewer! (An instant being less than six days, by my reckoning.) |
|
S.A.G. Motes 'n' Beams blog Join in the Fun Trivia Quiz! | |
![]() |
|
| Gerard | Tuesday, 24. August 2010, 19:54 Post #6 |
|
Proof please ..... Gerry |
| "The institutional and charismatic aspects are quasi coessential to the Church's constitution" (Pope John Paul II, 1998). | |
![]() |
|
| Mairtin | Tuesday, 24. August 2010, 20:09 Post #7 |
|
Well you can't certainly can't blame non-literal interpretation on some form of Modernism ![]()
Yes, you are quite free to ignore the concept of "prudently adopted opinion" recommended by the Commission, just as you are free to discard anything that science says - insisting that the Earth is flat or that the Moon is made of green cheese doesn't actually break any Church rules.
You understand wrong. Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Cyprian and Lactantius all explicitly stated that a day was really a thousand years; there are several other Fathers whose opinions are not quite clear. |
![]() |
|
| Clare | Tuesday, 24. August 2010, 20:10 Post #8 |
|
Putting the "Fun Dame" into Fundamentalist
|
Catholic Encyclopedia
|
|
S.A.G. Motes 'n' Beams blog Join in the Fun Trivia Quiz! | |
![]() |
|
| Clare | Tuesday, 24. August 2010, 20:14 Post #9 |
|
Putting the "Fun Dame" into Fundamentalist
|
Are the Fathers unaminous on those matters? I would say they are unanimous on the moon not being made of green cheese, so I will just have to accept that it isn't I guess. And they are pretty unanimous on the non-flatness of the earth, except (and I got this from Wikipedia so it's probably nonsense) St Augustine. But the general consensus of the Church has always been that the earth is round, and in fact the Old Testament does bear that out somewhere (I can't remember the reference, but I think it refers to "the round world" somewhere.) So, you can put away those straw men now, Mairtin. |
|
S.A.G. Motes 'n' Beams blog Join in the Fun Trivia Quiz! | |
![]() |
|
| OsullivanB | Tuesday, 24. August 2010, 20:24 Post #10 |
|
How wonderful. I hadn't even realised that any of the Fathers had addressed the lunar verdant cheese issue. Unanimous, eh? |
| "There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance - that principle is contempt prior to investigation." Herbert Spencer | |
![]() |
|
| Mairtin | Tuesday, 24. August 2010, 20:25 Post #11 |
|
Clare is quite right about that, Gerry, I can't recall the exact refernce but he states that in his great work The Literal Interpretation of Genesis. What she ignores, however, is that he explicitly stated that "[ I] worked out and presented the statements of the book of Genesis in a variety of ways according to my ability; and, in interpreting words that have been written obscurely for the purpose of stimulating our thought, I have not rashly taken my stand on one side against a rival interpretation which might possibly be better. I have thought that each one, in keeping with his powers of understanding, should choose the interpretation that he can grasp.(pp. 43-44) |
![]() |
|
| Anne-Marie | Tuesday, 24. August 2010, 20:30 Post #12 |
|
This could, perhaps, be down to interpretation: What the English call 'eternity' the French call 'siecle de siecle' (century of century - that being 10,000), which isn't anything like how the English comprehend eternity! As for whether a 'day' was 24hours or an unspecified time or phase of Creation, I have no idea. |
|
Anne-Marie FIAT VOLUNTAS DEI | |
![]() |
|
| Clare | Tuesday, 24. August 2010, 20:36 Post #13 |
|
Putting the "Fun Dame" into Fundamentalist
|
Well, I take their non-addressing of it as unanimity against the theory, but maybe it was unanimity in favour of it. It sounds like a modernist novelty to me though. |
|
S.A.G. Motes 'n' Beams blog Join in the Fun Trivia Quiz! | |
![]() |
|
| Mairtin | Tuesday, 24. August 2010, 20:40 Post #14 |
|
It is also worth noting that whilst St Augustine came to the conclusion that everything was initially created in an instant, he also theorised that life forms were not brought into existence in the form we know them; he hypothesised the concept of rationes seminales, where life forms were created in a crude form but contained a built-in plan for them to evolve into how we see them today. His ideas were obviously not totally in tune with what science tells us today but nevertheless when you consider he was writing 1500 years before Darwin, the Big Bang Theory and the discovery of genetics, his idea of an instantaneous creation bear an uncanny resemblance to the Big Bang and his rationes seminales to the Theory of Evolution and DNA. |
![]() |
|
| Rose of York | Tuesday, 24. August 2010, 20:41 Post #15 |
![]()
Administrator
|
Is there no record Jesus telling us, in writing, signed and witnessed? |
|
Keep the Faith! | |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Archived Discussions · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2








7:54 PM Jul 11