cmotherofpirl Posted July 9, 2003 Posted July 9, 2003 If he wanted us to develop over millions of years and at some point insert a soul into a first set of humans he could. If he wanted to make everything all set last week he could have as well. I think the first hypothesis is a bit more likely. God is not in or bound by our time.
Kathryn Posted August 4, 2003 Posted August 4, 2003 so then y'all agree with me that some parts of the Bible aren't meant to be taken literally? what about the Big Bang theory, i've heard of it, but who knows anything about it? is that a viable theory too? This is my first post here, and I am a little late in responding, but I wanted to say that the father of the Big Bang Theory was a devout Catholic priest and scientist Mgr.George Lemaitre. Pope Pius XII and the Pontifical Academy of Sciences hailed Lemaitre's work. The Big Bang Theory was initially met with a lot of scepticism by most astronomers including Einstein for the reason that it was proposed by a Catholic priest. When Albert Einstien heard Lemaitre give a presentation on it, he stood up and applauded and said, “This is the most beautiful and satisfactory explanation of creation to which I have ever listened.” It wasn't until about 1966 that the theory started to be taken seriously in the world of science. Previously it was thought that the universe always was, and always would be. The Big Bang Theory places the universe as having a beginning and will have an end, which fits in with the idea of an expanding universe. Mgr. Lemaitre believed the world was created by God. God Bless
Aloysius Posted August 4, 2003 Posted August 4, 2003 Also keep in mind that evolution has been declared a mathamatic impossibility. The probability is 1 in 1^280, which to a scientist is impossible. not to say that evolution definitely did happen, but in my opinion this is a weak argument how many planets are there in the universe? could there be 1^280? i donno, i was interested in that mathematical proof against evolution till i thought that way God created man God created woman Original sin took place with woman listening to the devil and bringing sin to man Salvation took place when new woman listened to the angel and brought savior to man God saved woman God saved man that's all that really matters right? \ God Bless
Thomas Michael Posted August 5, 2003 Posted August 5, 2003 Well, I've read Genesis, I've read about evolution... and from that I've pieced together my personal beliefs as follows: God made the universe starting with the Big Bang. God created DNA and let it run its course in developing life, guiding the evolution along. God experimented around with humans (thus the Neanderthal, the Homo Erectus, the Homo Sapiens) before perfecting his creation with the Cro-Magnon species. Adam and Eve were the first Cro-Magnons. God formed many other humans after Adam and Eve, using different colored skins and so on, and some of these people probably survived the 40-day flood as well. I'm kinda hesitant to believe that EVERYONE came from Adam and Eve (or Noah and his friends)... I don't think God would've wanted humanity to have such an incestuous beginning. I also believe there's life on other planets. And God may well have sent his Son to proclaim the Good News to those planets as well, when the time was right. Jesus may be known as Ikperdul-zogzat to believers some 30,000 light years away.
VanHooty Posted August 5, 2003 Posted August 5, 2003 Well... there was this Jesuit. Pierre Teilhard de Chardin. He, for one, had some pretty <insert appropriate words here> about evolution, matter, and the state of things. His ideas seem to be out of favor with both theologians and scientists nowadays.
Paladin D Posted August 5, 2003 Posted August 5, 2003 But wouldn't the whole Evolutionary concept diminish the original sin factor? If there were humans before Adam and Eve, and they (the humans before them, and the animals) ate meat (which is from other animals, and uh humans)... ...wouldn't that diminsh the whole "Adam and Eve were first Vegetarians"? And all the animals were too? No sin and death?
cmotherofpirl Posted August 5, 2003 Posted August 5, 2003 No. God made everything. So if he took 10 millions years or seven days it doesn't matter. THe important part is this: God at some point took a first couple and gave them souls. they sinned and the rest is history: sin and death. Does it really matter when we started eating meat?
mustbenothing Posted August 5, 2003 Posted August 5, 2003 (dUSt) If the story of creation is not literal, then what about Noah's ark, or the Tower of Babel? (Me) Exactly! The idea that the first chapters of Genesis are not historical raises a pivotal interpretive question - why is the rest of the Genesis narrative clearly historical (and regarded as such by both OT and NT writers)? This creates a disjunction in content between the two sections of Genesis. But where is there textual warrant for such a disjunction? On the contrary, the early narratives flow right into the latter narratives concerning the historical patriarchs. The placement of such a disjunction, under the "figurative" view, is the first sign of an artificial interpretive device. Thus, the figurative view must be considered false - and can be considered such on these grounds alone. (cmotherofpirl) One of the best ways to teach something is to tell a story. Jesus's parables when in a long line of teaching stories as found in the OT. Genesis up to Abraham are considered teaching stories: ways to transmit universal truths. Adam and Eve teach us many important things, as do Noahs ark and the tower of Babel. God made everything good, we messed up. God gave us a way to be saved. God loves us in spite of our stupidities. Noahs teaches that God brought us into the world and He can take us out. ( to paraphrase Bill Cosby). the Tower of Babel teaches us the dangers of technology and overreaching ourselves. (Me) Jesus always identified His parables, yet I see no identification of Gen 1-11 as non-historical. I think we can see immediately how accepting such a method of interpretation is going to be terrible: If we're just going to arbitrarily label chapters of Biblical history as non-historical, why not label Christ's resurrection as non-historical? (God conquers) Literal within the proper context and literary style of the book. Genesis was written long, long ago. And verbally trnasmitted for thousands of years before that. It is an allegorical style, so although we know the world was created by God, six days does not necessarily mean 6, 24 hour days. It is the opening chapter of SALVATION history, but not necessarily SCIENTIFIC history. (Me) In addition to the arguments presented above, the following observations seem to support the literal, six-day view (these arguments have been borrowed from Kenneth Gentry and R.L. Dabney): 1. Yom ("day") refers to a normal day as experienced regularly by man (though it may be limited to the hours of light, as per common understanding) in the overwhelming majority of the 1704 times it appears in the OT. The preponderate usage of a term should be maintained in exegetical analysis unless contextual forces indicate otherwise. This is particularly so in historical narrative. 2. Moses carefully identifies each of the six "days" with "evening and morning." This is clearly a qualification of the days. Outside of Genesis 1 the words "evening" and "morning" occur together in thirty-seven verses, and always refer to normal days. Examples from Moses include: Exodus 18:13: And so it was, on the next day, that Moses sat to judge the people; and the people stood before Moses from morning until evening. Exodus 27:21: In the tabernacle of meeting, outside the veil which is before the Testimony, Aaron and his sons shall tend it from evening until morning before the LORD. 3. A numerical adjective (first, second, third, etc.) is added to yom 119 times in Moses's writings, and never means anything other than a literal day. The same is true of the 357 instances outside the Pentateuch. Examples include: Leviticus 12:3: And on the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised. Exodus 12:15: Seven days you shall eat unleavened bread. On the first day you shall remove leaven from your houses. For whoever eats leavened bread from the first day until the seventh day, that person shall be cut off from Israel. Exodus 24:16: Now the glory of the LORD rested on Mount Sinai, and the cloud covered it six days. And on the seventh day He called to Moses out of the midst of the cloud. 4. Days 4, 5, and 6 occur after the creation of the sun, which was designated to "rule" the day/night pattern (Genesis 1:14), compelling us to understand this as a normal Earth day in light of the "evening and morning" pattern. The same description is given to days 1-3 as days 4-6, meaning that the days should all be considered the same. 5.In Exodus 20:9-11, God patterns man's six-day work week after His six-day work week. Seeing man's seven days as being different than God's seven days here is read into the text. On two occasions in Moses’s writings this rationale is used: Exodus 20:11 For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it. Exodus 31:15-17 Work shall be done for six days, but the seventh is the Sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD.... It is a sign between Me and the children of Israel forever; for in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, and on the seventh day He rested and was refreshed. 6. Exodus 20:11 says that God's creation week is "six days" (yammim), plural. In the 608 instances of the plural "days" in the Old Testament, we never find any other meaning than normal days. Ages are never expressed as yammim. 7. Had Moses intended to express the notion that the creation covered eras, he could have employed the term olam. Even the resting of God on the "seventh day" does not express His eternal rest, for it would also imply not only His continual rest but also His continual blessing of creation, as if sin never intervened: Genesis 2:3 Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made. (Aloysius) that's all that really matters right? (Me) You are right that whether or not God created the Earth in seven days is not very important to most people in their daily lives. However, step back for a second: what is important is the principle behind this discussion. It seems obvious to most people that we should assume that anything taught by supposedly autonomous human reason trumps the direct Word of God. However, "Let God be true, though every man be found a liar" (Romans 3:4). The question of origins is vital because it indicates where our ultimate authority lies: do we really believe that God's revelation trumps man's hypotheses, or do we trust man's reason over truth told us by God?
ICTHUS Posted August 6, 2003 Posted August 6, 2003 Hey Mustbenothing, I'm ICTHUS from CGR It should be noted that some Roman Catholics (such as myself) believe in a literal 7 day Creation. However, the belief is not very common among Catholics. But it is nevertheless within the teachings of the Catholic Church. I hold it because, a.) I converted from a Protestant church where the belief was prevalent. b.) I trust that God can indeed do what He said He did, namely, create the world, and all the creatures on it, in 7 literal days. c.) Not to mention the Biblical types of Christ as the Last Adam, and (it follows) His Mother, Mary, as the Last Eve, dont make sense if Adam and Eve were only metaphorical figures. Grace and blessings, Ryan
cmotherofpirl Posted August 6, 2003 Posted August 6, 2003 Adam and Eve are not metaphorical. I never said that. THey were real human beings who God gave a soul to, and fell of their own free will. We all suffer as a result. But the context of the story is a teaching story, with certain specific truths. God created everything and it was good. God created man specifically. God created the world for us to us, the animals for us to care for. THe sin of Adam brought pain and death into our lives, but with a promise of future redemption. What does not matter is the six day time period and the ludicrous notion that the Bible is a scientific treatise. Science and truth must agreed because they have the same origin - God. THe historical period of the Bible starts with Abraham.
cmotherofpirl Posted August 6, 2003 Posted August 6, 2003 (edited) And what would be the point of fossils etc, merely decoration? Edited August 6, 2003 by cmotherofpirl
God Conquers Posted August 7, 2003 Posted August 7, 2003 So because Moses knew what a day was the wirter of Genesis (a book passed down by Oral tradition whose writer is anonymous) was speaking, in the story of Creation, of 7 literal days? That doesn't follow. God only created the sun on the 4th day! How can there be a 24 hour day without the sun?! The story of creation, in proper context shows us that God indeed created the earth and all that was in it, especially humans, starting with TWO (now a scientific fact as mitochondrial and y chromosome tracing has determined), Adam and Eve.
goldenchild17 Posted August 7, 2003 Posted August 7, 2003 so then y'all agree with me that some parts of the Bible aren't meant to be taken literally? what about the Big Bang theory, i've heard of it, but who knows anything about it? is that a viable theory too? I don't believe that evolution holds too much weight. For an indepth argument against it read "Darwin's Black Box". The main problem lies within the concept of irreducible complexity. The big bang on the other hand, I think could be possible, as long as we all believe that God was the cause of it.
Jake Huether Posted August 7, 2003 Posted August 7, 2003 I can't agree with the Big Bang theory. In order for it to have worked, there would have had to be organization from dissorganization - which we can see now that the opposite is true! Unless God had his hand in things even AFTER the bang was caused. Otherwise, how could such complex organizmes such as ourselves be formed - even without soul and spirit (both had to have been created by God - not a bang).
goldenchild17 Posted August 7, 2003 Posted August 7, 2003 Like I said God could have started it. We did not come of the big bang... just the earth and space and all that stuff. Of course, God was involved after the big bang, he's involved now isn't he???
mustbenothing Posted August 8, 2003 Posted August 8, 2003 (cmotherofpirl) What does not matter is the six day time period and the ludicrous notion that the Bible is a scientific treatise. Science and truth must agreed because they have the same origin - God. (Me) But it is a history book (cmotherofpirl) THe historical period of the Bible starts with Abraham. (Me) As I said before: Can you show us any place where the text indicates this shift from metaphor to history? (cmotherofpirl) And what would be the point of fossils etc, merely decoration? (Me) When God creates things, He has a pattern of creating them "mature." So, the fish with which Jesus fed the thousands appeared aged. The wine Jesus made tasted old. Adam and Eve were adults, not infants. (God Conquers) So because Moses knew what a day was the wirter of Genesis (a book passed down by Oral tradition whose writer is anonymous) was speaking, (Me) The Pentateuch is infallibly identified as having been generally written by Moses throughout the NT. To say that Moses didn't write its first chapter, then, is a claim that you have to substantiate. It is clear, for instance, that Moses probably didn't write the description of his death or the stories after his death. However, I don't see any reason to think that Moses didn't write Genesis 1-2. (God Conquers) in the story of Creation, of 7 literal days? That doesn't follow. God only created the sun on the 4th day! How can there be a 24 hour day without the sun?! (Me) It indicates that there was morning and evening beforehand. (God Conquers) The story of creation, in proper context shows us that God indeed created the earth and all that was in it, especially humans, starting with TWO (now a scientific fact as mitochondrial and y chromosome tracing has determined), Adam and Eve. (Me) Its proper context (as displayed by the rest of the book of Genesis) is historical. Therefore, you must have created an artificial interpretive device if you want to allegorize its first few chapters.
Aloysius Posted August 10, 2003 Posted August 10, 2003 i dont think the 7day thing is literal because there are two stories and the other story doesn't mention it the tower of babel story is a warning against communism in my opinion i think adam and eve were in the garden of Eden around the time of the dinosaurs and God hadta kill em all off when he kicked adam and eve out of the garden-- we caused their extinction and for all those fossils of human-like creatures, i think they were animals- not human, there is no evidence that they are our ancestors, maybe they were wiped out with the flood and Noah was a homosapien while a bunch of other human like creatures were basically monkeys that looked more like humans i dont believe in evolution, so whoever did that math comment tell me if theres a way im wrong there <<justafewthoughts>>
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