Sponsor |  Ewtn2000 | May 9, 2007 11:32am | Again eat, Science doesn't not contradict Genesis, Science contradicts certain interpretation of Genesis. There is a big difference. Infact, that is mentioned in the link I provided on Howell and Augustine. And again, there is no defined doctrine that states one who believes in Genesis as the word of God must believe the Earth is young...
"Many scholars engage in lengthy discussion on these matters, but the sacred writers with their deeper wisdom have omittedthem. Such subjects are of no profit for those who seek beatitude, and, what is worse, they take up very precious time that ought to be given to what is spiritually beneficial."
You have fallen in what Howell is trying to explain:
Christians sometimes make themselves obstacles to the salvation of others rather than instruments of it. They do so when they equate a scientific theory with the meaning of the Bible. Augustine was well aware of this danger already in the fifth century. Not much has changed. His solution is humility both in the interpretation of nature and the interpretation of Scripture.
How can such humility be engendered? By recognizing that the Bible is more about "the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven" than it is about "the motion and orbit of the stars, their size and relative positions, and the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon." He warns against self- imposed authorities in biblical interpretation: "Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books." |
|
| 
|  eat | May 9, 2007 11:34am | Please address this statement: "anyone who believes that Genesis is the word of God must believe that humanity is tens of thousands of years younger than it actually is" in light of the arithmetic laid out by the genealogies of Genesis.
I'll be back tomorrow. |
|
|
Sponsor | | Ewtn2000 | May 9, 2007 11:38am | Explian what. I don't subscribe to having to believe that. Nothing tells me without a doubt that your arithmetic is correct or that the sets or subsets used in your equation are infallible.
...Suppose someone says that the earth is no more than ten thousand years old, as Christians in the West believed for centuries. Again, we should test this claim by the means that science has at its disposal. For well over a hundred years historical geology has developed tests to show that the earth must be far older than ten thousand years. These tests are cross-checked and rechecked to make sure the time estimates are not flawed. Now what should we do? Shall we insist that the Bible teaches that the earth is no more than ten thousand years old? Could it be that our interpretation is wrong? Augustine advises the second step: "But if they are able to establish their doctrine with proofsthat cannot be denied, we must show that this statement of Scripture . . . is not opposed to the truth of their conclusions." He urges us to change our interpretation of Scripture, not because Scripture is to be ruled by science, but because no two truths made by God will contradict one another. All truth comes from God, whether discovered by science or by the Church in its interpretation of Scripture. The first question we must ask is whether a particular scientific theory is well-founded. If it is, then we must make sure we don't read the Bible in a manner that contradicts sound knowledge of nature. |
|
|
| | eat | May 9, 2007 11:45am | Tomorrow really means 'indefinite period of time'. [/joke]
My present argument is about the age of humanity, not Earth. Have you looked at my references in post 215? They are reposted below. There are links to each of the references in the original post.
"The relevant genealogies are found in Genesis 5:1-32 , Genesis 11:10-32 and Matthew 1:1-17. A more digestible table of names and dates in Genesis can be found at Wikipedia - Genealogies of Genesis.
This is an important issue, and should not be glossed over. The arithmetic lain out in Genesis is not ambiguous, and has clear implications for the age of humanity. Please look at the details. |
|
| 
|  JRyanStevens | May 9, 2007 11:47am | I think he's asking for your interpretation of the genesis ages, or the purpose for God telling them to us. Why be so specific? Is this another allegory? it must be, but why say it like this? ... etc.
225. "Science doesn't not contradict Genesis."
LOL. I think we agree.
edit: whoops. eat's "tomorrow" came pretty quick, lol. |
|
|
Sponsor | | Ewtn2000 | May 9, 2007 11:49am | Yes, I have read them and others trying to prove that from then to now means that this earth is young. If the numbers or set of numbers are correct, then I would agree. But what if those who put forth this number, have the set of numbers wrong. God has given us all the variables to solve this equation. So knowing that some numbers may be wrong, then the answer of how old Scripture says our Earth may also be incorrect.
There is no one way of interpretation that I see Christians must believe in. Christians do believe that scriptural texts do not contradict one another. I believe that Genesis gives a vague account of God and His divine hand at the begining of our time. The time spand of creation is not specific and doesn't need to be for the truth of God is not challenged by it. Science is a gift of God and if we discover that the Earth is older, then we can say that the equation timeline set forth (interpretation) by some Christians, must be modified. |
|
|
| | eat | May 9, 2007 11:52am | 230: The numbers are put forward by the author of Genesis. An elementary school student could add them together and see that there were exactly 1942 years between Adam and Abraham. It is not high level math.
To illustrate this point, the relevant verses are posted below:
Genesis 5:1-32 -
"This is the written account of Adam's line.
When God created man, he made him in the likeness of God. 2 He created them male and female and blessed them. And when they were created, he called them "man. [a] "
3 When Adam had lived 130 years, he had a son in his own likeness, in his own image; and he named him Seth. 4 After Seth was born, Adam lived 800 years and had other sons and daughters. 5 Altogether, Adam lived 930 years, and then he died.
6 When Seth had lived 105 years, he became the father [b] of Enosh. 7 And after he became the father of Enosh, Seth lived 807 years and had other sons and daughters. 8 Altogether, Seth lived 912 years, and then he died.
9 When Enosh had lived 90 years, he became the father of Kenan. 10 And after he became the father of Kenan, Enosh lived 815 years and had other sons and daughters. 11 Altogether, Enosh lived 905 years, and then he died.
12 When Kenan had lived 70 years, he became the father of Mahalalel. 13 And after he became the father of Mahalalel, Kenan lived 840 years and had other sons and daughters. 14 Altogether, Kenan lived 910 years, and then he died.
15 When Mahalalel had lived 65 years, he became the father of Jared. 16 And after he became the father of Jared, Mahalalel lived 830 years and had other sons and daughters. 17 Altogether, Mahalalel lived 895 years, and then he died.
18 When Jared had lived 162 years, he became the father of Enoch. 19 And after he became the father of Enoch, Jared lived 800 years and had other sons and daughters. 20 Altogether, Jared lived 962 years, and then he died.
21 When Enoch had lived 65 years, he became the father of Methuselah. 22 And after he became the father of Methuselah, Enoch walked with God 300 years and had other sons and daughters. 23 Altogether, Enoch lived 365 years. 24 Enoch walked with God; then he was no more, because God took him away.
25 When Methuselah had lived 187 years, he became the father of Lamech. 26 And after he became the father of Lamech, Methuselah lived 782 years and had other sons and daughters. 27 Altogether, Methuselah lived 969 years, and then he died.
28 When Lamech had lived 182 years, he had a son. 29 He named him Noah [c] and said, "He will comfort us in the labor and painful toil of our hands caused by the ground the LORD has cursed." 30 After Noah was born, Lamech lived 595 years and had other sons and daughters. 31 Altogether, Lamech lived 777 years, and then he died.
32 After Noah was 500 years old, he became the father of Shem, Ham and Japheth."
Genesis 11:10-32 -
"10 This is the account of Shem.
Two years after the flood, when Shem was 100 years old, he became the father [d] of Arphaxad. 11 And after he became the father of Arphaxad, Shem lived 500 years and had other sons and daughters.
12 When Arphaxad had lived 35 years, he became the father of Shelah. 13 And after he became the father of Shelah, Arphaxad lived 403 years and had other sons and daughters. [e]
14 When Shelah had lived 30 years, he became the father of Eber. 15 And after he became the father of Eber, Shelah lived 403 years and had other sons and daughters.
16 When Eber had lived 34 years, he became the father of Peleg. 17 And after he became the father of Peleg, Eber lived 430 years and had other sons and daughters.
18 When Peleg had lived 30 years, he became the father of Reu. 19 And after he became the father of Reu, Peleg lived 209 years and had other sons and daughters.
20 When Reu had lived 32 years, he became the father of Serug. 21 And after he became the father of Serug, Reu lived 207 years and had other sons and daughters.
22 When Serug had lived 30 years, he became the father of Nahor. 23 And after he became the father of Nahor, Serug lived 200 years and had other sons and daughters.
24 When Nahor had lived 29 years, he became the father of Terah. 25 And after he became the father of Terah, Nahor lived 119 years and had other sons and daughters.
26 After Terah had lived 70 years, he became the father of Abram, Nahor and Haran.
27 This is the account of Terah.
Terah became the father of Abram, Nahor and Haran. And Haran became the father of Lot. 28 While his father Terah was still alive, Haran died in Ur of the Chaldeans, in the land of his birth. 29 Abram and Nahor both married. The name of Abram's wife was Sarai, and the name of Nahor's wife was Milcah; she was the daughter of Haran, the father of both Milcah and Iscah. 30 Now Sarai was barren; she had no children.
31 Terah took his son Abram, his grandson Lot son of Haran, and his daughter-in-law Sarai, the wife of his son Abram, and together they set out from Ur of the Chaldeans to go to Canaan. But when they came to Haran, they settled there.
32 Terah lived 205 years, and he died in Haran." |
|
|
Sponsor | | Ewtn2000 | May 9, 2007 11:58am | No. The author of Genesis does state the account of the world. I have yet to read that the author states without any other belief, that it was 24 hours. Man has done that. Interpretation my friend....
Yet Augustine's interpretations were not open-ended. He suggested the following procedure that applies to Genesis as well as any other biblical text. He said that we first should seek to expound the author's meaning according to the historical or literal sense. The literal sense for Augustine is the sense the words bear in their original historical-linguistic context. If we are unable to agree on the author's meaning, we at least should interpret Scripture according to the wider context of the Bible as a whole. We should make sure that our interpretations of a particular text are consistent with what the Bible says elsewhere. If this proves difficult, we must interpret the Bible within the boundaries of the Catholic faith. Augustine directs this advice against those who rashly assert the meaning of the Bible on uncertain and doubtful matters. It is better to be humble than to proclaim boldly opinions on Scripture that might be wrong. The key to Augustine's approach to the Bible lies in his willingness to read the Bible with the Church. |
|
|
| | eat | May 9, 2007 12:00pm | | I am arguing about humanity, not Earth. Again, I am no longer arguing the definition of day. I am arguing how old Genesis says humanity is, not Earth. Please address the argument about humanity, not Earth. Posting quotations that are unrelated to this argument is wasteful. |
|
|
Sponsor | | Ewtn2000 | May 9, 2007 12:01pm | | Humanity... Humans with souls or humaniods without? There also the author doesn't tell us if there where humaniods prior to "Man". |
| |
| |
Apologetics → Discussion