More proof Evolution is not true

[Michie]

people have pointed out Catholic scholars from Augustine to Benedict who don't take the Genesis creation accounts literally.

Quoting in depth Catholic commentaries is more tricky because they're less widely available than non-Catholic ones, but in the world of serious biblical scholarship there is very little difference - they all use and cite each other.

Of course everything is not to be taken literally. But genealogies are a bit different. I think you are interesting in OBOB but you aren't Catholic & I was looking for catholic commentary & thought to my question.

The closest thing I have found concerning this issue is what the Church believes concerning human evolution. It allows that our bodies developed from previous forms under God's care but insists on the special creation of the soul. Adam, Eve, and offspring seem to fall under the matter of souls.

A similar line of reasoning does happen in Jesus' genealogy. Matthew sets it up in groups of 14 for instance. He throws in Rahab to make a theological point. And so on.

Difficult as this stuff is for the modern reader, there is a point to it-it is a truncated version of OT history tying Jesus to the OT. What Matthew is trying to say is -if you want to know and understand Jesus read the OT and deuteros. It's all connected. The story of our salvation.

 

[ebia]

As one who is not threatened by the prospect of Evolution, it factually is NOT an established fact. It is a theory. There is a big difference. You don't hear otherwise from the Scientific community by and large because those who say otherwise for scientific reason are virtually blacklisted from major universities. This is well documented... not moon-landing conspiracy theories.

Evolution is an observed fact. Evolutionary theory is the model that seeks to explain that fact. Theory in science does not imply lack of certainty. "Scientists" who do not understand these distinctions are not competent to do their job - if someone goes around spouting complete rubbish of course they don't get a university job - this is a professional technical field not politics.

 

[Michie]

Science is full of politics.

 

[ebia]

Of course everything is not to be taken literally. But genealogies are a bit different. I think you are interesting in OBOB but you aren't Catholic & I was looking for catholic commentary & thought to my question.

The closest thing I have found concerning this issue is what the Church believes concerning human evolution. It allows that our bodies developed from previous forms under God's care but insists on the special creation of the soul. Adam, Eve, and offspring seem to fall under the matter of souls.

according to Benedict XVI special creation is the moment a person first dimly conceived the idea "god".

Difficult as this stuff is for the modern reader, there is a point to it-it is a truncated version of OT history tying Jesus to the OT. What Matthew is trying to say is -if you want to know and understand Jesus read the OT and deuteros. It's all commected. The story of our salvation.

exactly, and OT genealogies function in similar ways. They tie the stories together. They make the connections and tell theological truths. Read Gen5 aloud and it's theological truth will be drummed into you:

... And he died.
... And he died.
... And he died.
... And he died.

 

[ebia]

Science is full of politics.

There's some politics in anything, but mostly it's the way the media deals with science that is (completely inappropriately) modeled on the (appropriate) way they deal with politics.

In political reporting you need balance of reporting. In technical reporting it completely distorts things.

 

[ebia]

I think you are interesting in OBOB but you aren't Catholic & I was looking for catholic commentary & thought to my question.

I studied Genesis with a Catholic seminary, BTW.

 

[Michie]

according to Benedict XVI special creation is the moment a person first dimly conceived the idea "god".

(Pius XII, Humani Generis 36).

exactly, and OT genealogies function in similar ways. They tie the stories together. They make the connections and tell theological truths. Read Gen5 aloud and it's theological truth will be drummed into you:

... And he died.
... And he died.
... And he died.
... And he died.

It's a rabbinical technique called gemetria.

Tamar is in Genesis 38

Rahab is in Joshua 2

Ruth & Bathsheba 2 Samuel 11

Then there was Mary.

They all showed they played an important role in God's plan. Allegories cannot do that.

 

[Michie]

There's some politics in anything, but mostly it's the way the media deals with science that is (completely inappropriately) modeled on the (appropriate) way they deal with politics.

In political reporting you need balance of reporting. In technical reporting it completely distorts things.

I'm not talking about reporting. I'm talking about the scientists that said themselves directly they were rode out on a rail because of politics.

 

[Dylan Michael]

As far as evolution... Man was made in God's image and since God doesn't "evolve", neither does man.
Genesis 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.

Who's to say that God did not create us in his image through the process of evolution?

Anyway, it does not matter to me, one way or the other. I do not believe that it is necessary for one's salvation whether one believes in literal Genesis or not.

 

[Dylan Michael]

I studied Genesis with a Catholic seminary, BTW.

As I am.

 

[ebia]

They all showed they played an important role in God's plan. Allegories cannot do that.

Various people have seen various reasons for them being there. Most of those are perfectly compatible with some of them not having not been historically identifiable individuals. Not that they necessarily were not either - that's not the point.

The trouble with throwing around words like allegory is that it has a very precise meaning. When one says "x is not literal" that does not mean it's allegory necessarily. A better model for such stories as are in Genesis' prologue is historical parable.

Rahab is interesting because nowhere in the OT does it say she married Salma.

 

[ebia]

I'm not talking about reporting. I'm talking about the scientists that said themselves directly they were rode out on a rail because of politics.

Such things sometimes do happen in any field, but very often people who claim it happened to them are distorting the story.

 

[ebia]

(Pius XII, Humani Generis 36).

So? Benedict has said what I said he said.

 

[Michie]

(Pius XII, Humani Generis 36).

It's a rabbinical technique called gemetria.

Tamar is in Genesis 38

Rahab is in Joshua 2

Ruth & Bathsheba 2 Samuel 11

Then there was Mary.


Various people have seen various reasons for them being there. Most of those are perfectly compatible with some of them not having not been historically identifiable individuals. Not that they necessarily were not either - that's not the point.

The trouble with throwing around words like allegory is that it has a very precise meaning. When one says "x is not literal" that does not mean it's allegory necessarily. A better model for such stories as are in Genesis' prologue is historical parable.

Rahab is interesting because nowhere in the OT does it say she married Salma.

Thats because you have to look at it with some knowledge of the customs of the time.

It was tradition that, if the father of a jewish family were to die and the widow re-marry, the second husband would be counted as the father of the widow's children which she had with her deceased spouse. This was not uncommon in biblical times.

The purpose of this geneology is to tie Jesus to the OT. Matthew is talking to a community of Jewish Christians.

 

[ebia]

Of douse I know that. But there is no hint in the OT of Rahab and Salma getting it together at all.

Of course the main purpose of Mathews genealogy is to tie his story to the preceding ones. And that's exactly the purpose of the OT ones - whether or not some or all of the characters within them
are a-historical.

 

[Michie]

So? Benedict has said what I said he said.

I don't believe it was an infallible statement was it?

Point is that there are many schools of thought on this within the Church.

Does Benedict's opinion veto all else?

I don't think so.

 

[Michie]

Of douse I know that. But there is no hint in the OT of Rahab and Salma getting it together at all.

Of course the main purpose of Mathews genealogy is to tie his story to the preceding ones. And that's exactly the purpose of the OT ones - whether or not some or all of the characters within them
are a-historical.

Well they obviously did or it would not be listed in the genealogy.

We have the lost years of Jesus too.

Does that mean that they did not exist?

 

[ebia]

I don't believe it was an infallible statement was it?

Point is that there are many schools of thought on this within the Church.

Does Benedict's opinion veto all else?

I don't think so.

No. What it does show is that this opinion is within the range of the best Catholic scholarly opinion.

 

[Tigg]

Thanks FriendlyJosh for your posts. Your posts of footprints etc is something to look up. To me, it is the Theory of Evolution not the Law of Evolution. Anyhows thanks.

 

[ebia]

Well they obviously did or it would not be listed in the genealogy.

that's a circular argument