ithinkjesusiscool Posted April 15, 2014 Share Posted April 15, 2014 Do we have any scientific evidence that God created humans after creating everything else? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Basilisa Marie Posted April 15, 2014 Share Posted April 15, 2014 No, but we do have scientific evidence that supports evolution. :) What are you trying to get at? In one Genesis story, a man is created first, in the other, he's created last. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winchester Posted April 15, 2014 Share Posted April 15, 2014 It's almost like Genesis is allegory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KnightofChrist Posted April 15, 2014 Share Posted April 15, 2014 The book of Genesis - Two different Accounts on Creation of Man […] the book of Genesis uses a combination of two distinctStyle (a) Jahwistic Style and (b) the Priestly Style to convey two different messages in one same doctrine. Yahwistic Style uses the sacred name of Yahweh (Lord) for God. Its style is concrete, colorful and uses anthropomorhphism (or an expression which introduces God as acting after human fashion. eg. God is said ‘to walk’ in paradise). This style is said to be of Judean origin. While Priestly Style it is quite dry and stereotyped as compare to Yahwistic. In Genesis Chapter 1 the following characteristics may be observed: the word ‘God’ is throughout. This account is from the priestly style. The author wants to explain the origin of all things with man as the most important creature. Genesis Chapter 2 is Jahwistic Style; here the creator is address not by a simple word God but ‘Lord God’. Anthropomorphism is visibly seen, the author presented God as Potter and Ruler (Lord). Formation of Man Genesis 1:26-30 God said: Let us make man in our image; according to our likeness and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the heavens, over the cattle, over all the wild beast and over every creeping thing that creep over the earth. The priestly writer presented God as pausing thinking, Let us make man which was quite different when he created other creatures by just uttering the creative word in a casual way. Man is made in the image, according to the likeness of God. These words indicate the dignity and mission of man. Since man is the image and likeness of God, he is called to be his (God) representative, in administration of creation. It also means that he (man) received a number of qualities and talents to exercise his mission to fulfill his task on earth. In short, the account on creation of man in Genesis 1 conveys that man is a dignified being and implies a state of friendship with God. Genesis 2:7 The Lord God fashioned man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils a breath of life, and human became a living being. Here, the creator (God) is pictured as a potter. He shaped the dust into a human form; then breathed into the lifeless figure a breath of life and the figure became man. The author uses the image of the potter to express the religious thought of the absolute sovereignty of God and the total dependence of Man to him. Fashioned man of dust refers to the nature that perishes without the nourishment coming from God. These two have the same doctrine: (a) God made all things.(b) God is all powerful.(c) God is good and the source of all things. Chapter 1 man is the image and likeness of God and Chapter 2 has been livened by the divine breath of God - the breath of life. Man is a dignified but dependent being. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mortify ii Posted April 15, 2014 Share Posted April 15, 2014 If the bible as text is unreliable, why be Catholic? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KnightofChrist Posted April 15, 2014 Share Posted April 15, 2014 If the bible as text is unreliable, why be Catholic? "For if you did believe Moses, you would perhaps believe me also; for he wrote of me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words?" - Christ in John 5:46-47 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Basilisa Marie Posted April 15, 2014 Share Posted April 15, 2014 If the bible as text is unreliable, why be Catholic? Literalism does not have a monopoly on truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KnightofChrist Posted April 15, 2014 Share Posted April 15, 2014 A friend of mine said that his church takes the Bible literally, but that the Catholic Church doesn't...is that true? Actually, there is no truth to that, whatsoever. Catholics interpret the Bible in a "literal" sense, while many fundamentalists, Evangelicals, and others interpret the Bible in a literalist sense. The "literal" meaning of a passage of Scripture is the meaning that the author of that passage of Scripture intended to convey. The "literalist" interpretation of a passage of Scripture is: "that's what it says, that's what it means." Let me give you an example to illustrate the difference. If you were to read a passage in a book that said it was "raining cats and dogs outside", how would you interpret that? As Americans, in the 21st Century, you would know that the author was intending to convey the idea that it was raining pretty doggone hard outside. That would be the "literal" interpretation...the interpretation the author intended to convey. On the other hand, what if you made a "literalist" interpretation of the phrase, "it's raining cats and dogs"? The "literalist" interpretation would be that, were you to walk outside, you would actually see cats and dogs falling from the sky like rain. No taking into account the popularly accepted meaning of this phrase. No taking into account the author's intentions. The words say it was raining cats and dogs, so, by golly, it was raining cats and dogs! That is the literalist, or fundamentalist, way of interpretation. If someone 2000 years in the future picked up that same book and read, "It was raining cats and dogs outside," in order to properly understand that passage in the book, they would need a "literal" interpretation, not a "literalist" interpretation. Now, think about that in the context of interpreting the Bible 2000-3000 years after it was written. Literal, or Catholic, interpretation vs. literalist, or fundamentalist, interpretation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fidei Defensor Posted April 15, 2014 Share Posted April 15, 2014 Evolution is the mechanism. We don't know why. And perhaps never will. But by the grace of God and his gift of reasoning, we have discovered why the Earth is so diverse in life! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mortify ii Posted April 16, 2014 Share Posted April 16, 2014 What does science say about the Virgin Birth? It must all be allegory! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tab'le De'Bah-Rye Posted April 16, 2014 Share Posted April 16, 2014 If the bible as text is unreliable, why be Catholic? divine revelation does not end with the holy bible and sacred tradition, though can be expounded from these. Jesus " not all i do will be revealed in this account." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tab'le De'Bah-Rye Posted April 16, 2014 Share Posted April 16, 2014 (edited) Dinosaur bones may be some kind of evidence that there was something else before man and that man came after, in that there are no human bones found as to date that are as old as dinosaur bones, and it's just theory. Though perhaps human bones disintegrate faster than dinosaur bones but unsure how we prove that, or perhaps for some reason human bones can't fossilise but dinosaur bones can. Edited April 16, 2014 by Tab'le De'Bah-Rye Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ithinkjesusiscool Posted April 16, 2014 Author Share Posted April 16, 2014 Evolution? As long as humans never came from the apes/monkeys I can accept some kind of evolution. I don't like scientism but we should be able to learn something about the Bible from science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fidei Defensor Posted April 16, 2014 Share Posted April 16, 2014 Evolution? As long as humans never came from the apes/monkeys I can accept some kind of evolution. I don't like scientism but we should be able to learn something about the Bible from science. Humans didn't "come from" apes but they do share a common ancestor with them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the171 Posted April 17, 2014 Share Posted April 17, 2014 and this is why we need better science education ugghhh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now