Posted on 11/24/2014 1:07:14 PM PST by NYer
I have read all that Heinlein ever wrote.
He used just about every foible of mankind in his quest to add reality to his personal dreams. (and they were dreams, he was not realistic in most of them, as to what his depth of knowledge of physics would permit)
.
What then does the repeated phrase “and the morning and the evening were the ___ day” mean to you?
But I don`t know, it is nothing but speculation, if I knew it all I would be equal to God.
He repeated that phrase to set out his days of creation.
How could they be other than days from sun to sun?
.
The concept of original sin and has to do with the fact that man , the only creature with the capacity for free will, complex multiple choices and the inevitable poor choices made by all at some point would be alienated from a loving creator. It would only be through the acceptance of Christ and his purifying sacrifice that man in his imperfection might hope to be saved and brought to the Creator. The Genesis stories are symbolic meant to be understood by everyone that God created everything. Do fundamentalists really believe that Paradise was lost by eating an apple?
Now exactly what in that declaration suggests a multiple creation?
Them is more than one.
“Them” is the descendants of Adam.
Without that understanding, the whole book falls apart.
.
Yes, and I have the Renaissance paintings to prove it.
Nothing in the account suggests an apple!
There is far more to it than original sin.
The “kinsman redeemer” principle cannot tolerate but one line of man.
Logic also looks to a single line, since multiple lines would defeat all the rest of the book.
How else could Noah be “perfect in his generations?”
How else could Yeshua have been the new Adam?
One could pose these kinds of questions for days on end, just reading the Bible.
I suspect that you under-estimate yourself.
Just about everything on book shelves does the DD up, DD down routine in some way.
TV is far worse too!
You can’t even watch a football game anymore without some kind of trash being stuffed through your eyeballs.
.
He repeated that phrase to set out his days of creation.
How could they be other than days from sun to sun?
So it took generations according to verse 4 but was counted as one day.
Them” is the descendants of Adam.
Without that understanding, the whole book falls apart.
Why wouldn’t I believe it? Jesus did. Who are you-—who is any man-—to contradict Him & to say we should believe differently?
Your version is all conjecture, all dreamed up by men who couldn’t bring their intellectual, enlightened selves to believe the Scriptural account.
Genesis is a gift given to us by God. He related to us in simple terms His stunning act of creation. Why bother twisting oneself into a pretzel to try and make it mean something else when it’s THERE?
Jesus confirmed it. The Lord referred to Genesis as historical fact. Was He wrong? Mistaken?
Nope.
And I don’t know where on earth you got the idea the fruit of the tree was an apple. Seriously? I’ve only ever heard that from people who never opened a Bible. Wow...very strange.
Jesus taught in parables. The use of symbolism and allegory is always used to communicate the profound. In this case the sacred profound.
Cannot count the times I’ve blown my punchline on FR.
Did Adam and Eve really exist?
I’m more intrigued by the question: “Did they have belly buttons?”
(Yes, they existed)
One line is necessary after Noah.
And while it is probably prior to Noah, It is not necessary , because other verses can be used to build a case the is weak but not irrational.
Considering that the current "theistic evolutionist" teaching of the Church itself represents a change from previous doctrine,
Such as ... ??? When you make a statement, be prepared to back it up. Please be specific and provide referenced teachings and doctrines to support your argument.
So what, you're implying that the current "theistic evolutionist" position of the Catholic Church is the one it has always held? Really???
First there is Arcanum, issued in 1880 by Leo XIII. Then there is the decree of the First Vatican Council that G-d created "all things in the beginning" (which excludes the gradual creation of things by purely natural processes eons after the beginning). And then there is the confession Pope Pelagius demanded of King Childebert, in which the king had to confess that Adam had not been born like other men but created directly, and that Eve had literally been created from Adam's side.
Then there is the fact that none of the church fathers interpreted Genesis as today's Catholic Church does. Not only were they all (with the exception of Augustine) literalist creationists, most of them were "young earth" literalist creationists as well. Even the Orthodox Fr. Seraphim Rose, who wrote the book Genesis and Early Man against "theistic evolution" but who did not believe in a "young earth" was surprised to learn just how much the ancient fathers agreed with today's Biblical fundamentalists on the age of the earth issue; as a matter of fact he found it so unexpected that he made the decision to ignore this fact in his book.
Augustine was not an evolutionist. He believed everything had been created simul in the beginning. This is the opposite of the "theistic evolution" by which the Catholic Church nowadays interprets Genesis as evidenced by all the commentaries in all modern Catholic bibles, without exception.
Do you honestly maintain that the Catholic Church interprets the Bible exactly as it did in the days of Cardinal Bellarmine? Such a claim would be absurd.
Furthermore, in the very article you posted the author spends a great deal of time acknowledging the right of modern uniformitarian science to authoritatively interpret the creation accounts in Genesis. This is a terrible thing to do. Modern naturalistic science has no access to the creation of the world, or even to the state of the world as it existed when it was first created. This means that cosmogony is quite plainly outside the purview of modern science and exclusively the domain of Divine Revelation and theology.
And please, before you automatically post back that "faith cannot contradict reason" please stop and think for yourself for a moment. You don't allow science to describe how the "seedless conception" was accomplished or how the bread and fishes were "multiplied." Science has even less business inquiring into the grandfather of all miracles: the supernatural production of everything from nothing in an instant. But I'm sure you'll ignore this and say it anyway.
One need not believe in the truth of ancient Catholicism or Orthodoxy to admit that the current position of both churches is a modern reaction to Protestantism, not the ancient immemorial "unchanged" teaching . . . however many would like to claim otherwise.
Yes, that's it exactly. And all of this, which today's Catholics pretend has been the teaching from time immemorial, is all derived from an allergy to the Bible the Catholics picked up from the Protestant reformation. How great must be the hatred that caused such a change in perspective.
Perhaps a better question to put to the author would have been "Did a Literal Garden of Eden, and a Literal Tree Of Life, Really Exist"?
Alex . . . you and I both know what their answer to those questions would be.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.