Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Just because God chose Israel, there is no reason to think that he gave them perfect knowledge of science snd history. In fact there’s lots of reasons to think he didn’t.Wow. Is that what the Bible should be known as? "... closer to the truth..." Nearly dependable? At least half right? More right than wrong? - lol
Only the sith deals in absolutes SteveWow. Is that what the Bible should be known as? "... closer to the truth..." Nearly dependable? At least half right? More right than wrong? - lol
I am only saying that Adam wasn't named in your quotation. That was your point, I believe. Here's one about others named in the NT from Genesis. (Abel)If I refer to a book as a reference for my point, am I not confirming the data in the book? Jesus referring to the creation account to make a point would be pretty lame if he didn't believe that the account was accurate.
And then we have the remainder of the book of Genesis, I always wondered if the people that take the creation count as symbolic think everybody else in the book is symbolic also even though specific names and genealogies are given? Doesn't make any sense.
Yeah I wasn't really arguing with you, anyway, but the person who reads genesis non literally. There's too much that's important to theology in the first book.I am only saying that Adam wasn't named in your quotation. That was your point, I believe. Here's one about others named in the NT from Genesis. (Abel)
Luke 11:50-51 NIV
Therefore this generation will be held responsible for the blood of all the prophets that has been shed since the beginning of the world, 51 from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who was killed between the altar and the sanctuary. Yes, I tell you, this generation will be held responsible for it all.
I was finding humor in the idea that the Bible would be referred to as "... closer to the truth..." than something else. As if the truth is nowhere to be found, especially not in the Bible. But at least it is "... closer to the truth..." than others. By what measure? - lolJust because God chose Israel, there is no reason to think that he gave them perfect knowledge of science snd history. In fact there’s lots of reasons to think he didn’t.
The creation story: (Genesis)
- Was the universe created in six literal days?
- Was Adam the first human, a created being?
- Was Adam created in the image of God, after his likeness? (appearance)
- Is the Genesis account literal, or figurative?
- Was the Genesis account based on an oral tradition? (origins myth)
- In reference to Adam, is the conclusion of the genealogy of Jesus correct? (see below)
Luke 3:38 NIV
the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.
Yes, only the magisterium defines doctrine or dogma but the CCC teaches based on such definitions and in the case of the story of creation the concept that all humans can trace their lineage through to a single pair of parents is Catholic dogma. And this rules out polygenism to the extent that it conflicts with that understanding. If, OTOH, evolution would be incapable of arriving at a being such as ourselves, rational creatures made in the image of God with free will and a soul, then humans would've necessarily resulted from a specific act of God employing existing non-human primates as the material. Then a single pair of ancestors would be possible without regard to polygenism.The CCC doesn't define doctrine, even though it's supposed to be a reliable summary of it. Not everyone agrees that your quotation represents the last word. This article, e.g., Adam and Eve and Evolution, looked at the actual debates behind it, and concluded that the language from Vatican 2 was intentionally ambiguous, and specifically avoided rejecting polygenism, while noting that it raised questions. My feeling is that Catholic authorities have learned from the Galileo episode, and are wary of making definitive pronouncements that may well be shown to be false. I believe by now it's pretty clear that a single Adam and Eve is false.
As long as you accept dualism, this position is pretty much unfalsifiable. As you mention, you can accept the usual evolutionary model, but say that God added a soul starting with one pair. Since there’s no way to observe a soul or show how it originated, it’s hard to disprove this.Yes, only the magisterium defines doctrine or dogma but the CCC teaches based on such definitions and in the case of the story of creation the concept that all humans can trace their lineage through to a single pair of parents is Catholic dogma. And this rules out polygenism to the extent that it conflicts with that understanding. If, OTOH, evolution would be incapable of arriving at a being such as ourselves, rational creatures made in the image of God with free will and a soul, then humans would've necessarily resulted from a specific act of God employing existing non-human primates as the material. Then a single pair of ancestors would be possible without regard to polygenism.
Anyway, if the church turns out to be wrong on this matter it would be much more relevant-and devastating IMO-than the Galileo episode which involved no dogma even as it has rightly or wrongly engaged much popular attention.
It's allegorical. It starts with the first day and Jesus Christ coming into the world. "Let there be Light. " And the death of Jesus on the 6th day as his last words according to the Gospel of John were, "It is finished". He then rested on the 7th day.The creation story: (Genesis)
- Was the universe created in six literal days?
- Was Adam the first human, a created being?
- Was Adam created in the image of God, after his likeness? (appearance)
- Is the Genesis account literal, or figurative?
- Was the Genesis account based on an oral tradition? (origins myth)
- In reference to Adam, is the conclusion of the genealogy of Jesus correct? (see below)
Luke 3:38 NIV
the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.
Yes- or the idea could also turn out to be true.As long as you accept dualism, this position is pretty much unfalsifiable. As you mention, you can accept the usual evolutionary model, but say that God added a soul starting with one pair. Since there’s no way to observe a soul or show how it originated, it’s hard to disprove this.
But even unfalsifiable ideas die when what gave rise to them is no longer believed.
Mythology is a prefilozophic, prerational view of the world.Of course it is. It might have helpful points, but a myth is certainly a made up story. So it's a fabrication.
God gave us logic to use it, not to break it.Could it not be both figurative and literal?
I was also thinking of the creation account itself in Genesis tells us the measure of a day as sunset and sunrise. Seemingly a 24 hour period. However, the sun isn't created until later in the week. Not sure how that works.
The Bible doesn't say a day is 24 hours long. We know it's 24 hrs because we discovered that.
It can't in a book that is written as history. You have to rip the creation account from the rest of the book, and claim it's poetry and mythology while the rest is written as factual? Does not compute.suspect you use the word "fabrication" meaning something like "lie" or something negative. "Bible cannot have such fabrications". In a degradatory meaning. Thats not the right understanding of ancient myths.
Do you have any evidence that ancient people in Mesopotamia wrote history as the boring chain of events and facts?It can't in a book that is written as history. You have to rip the creation account from the rest of the book, and claim it's poetry and mythology while the rest is written as factual? Does not compute.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?