Or if the Bible is read incorrectly. 
Posted on 11/07/2005 12:05:04 PM PST by Mikey_1962
THE Vatican has issued a stout defence of Charles Darwin, voicing strong criticism of Christian fundamentalists who reject his theory of evolution and interpret the biblical account of creation literally.
Cardinal Paul Poupard, head of the Pontifical Council for Culture, said the Genesis description of how God created the universe and Darwin's theory of evolution were "perfectly compatible" if the Bible were read correctly. His statement was a clear attack on creationist campaigners in the US, who see evolution and the Genesis account as mutually exclusive.
"The fundamentalists want to give a scientific meaning to words that had no scientific aim," he said at a Vatican press conference. He said the real message in Genesis was that "the universe didn't make itself and had a creator".
This idea was part of theology, Cardinal Poupard emphasised, while the precise details of how creation and the development of the species came about belonged to a different realm - science. Cardinal Poupard said that it was important for Catholic believers to know how science saw things so as to "understand things better".
His statements were interpreted in Italy as a rejection of the "intelligent design" view, which says the universe is so complex that some higher being must have designed every detail.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.com.au ...
I believe that God created the heavens and the earth, and humankind and all creatures. How exactly He did it, we won't know until we get to heaven itself.
Or if the Bible is read incorrectly.
Nope, they just remembered the Scripture, "a thousand years in Thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past." And the way Christians and Jews approached the Scriptures before rationalism introduced the idea of 'literal' interpretation--as if a work written over centuries in different cultures under the influence of a radically transcendant God would just be readable at face value as if it were written by and for post-'Enlightenment' rationalist.
St. Basil the Great, writing in the fourth century, was hardly a prisoner of 'liberalism', and in his Hexaemeron wrote, "It matters not whether you day 'day' or 'aeon', the thought is the same."
St. Gregory of Nyssa described the opening chapters of Genesis as "Doctrine in the guise of a narrative."
Nor did the medieval Jewish sages Maimonides and Nachmonides see the opening of Genesis as a literal history--their commentaries focus on the fact that it is the opening of the Torah and the odd construction in the 'first day': the Hebrew does not use an ordinal, but translates as "one day".
Ah, I see, If republicans state matter of factly that cutting taxes raises income and boosts the economy, democrats have been slighted and that republican is an anti democrat bigot.
Yes, we see how it works - when you have no argument, start up with the inflamatory rhetoric and start crying wolf. Oh, you're persecuted. Oh, they won't let you worship as you wish. Oh they're martyring you on the spot. Oh, Oh, Oh... Would that we could see your "Oh" face. Perhaps the pathetic nature of it would sell your appeal to sympathy rather than facts. Is there no depth to which the likes of you will not decietfully sink? Why do you so dishonor yourself and your fellows with such blatently dishonest behavior?
Why do you have to appeal to early thinkers instead of Jesus, the Apostles, prophets and the scriptures themselves. Why? Because only through the opinions of dissassociated persons can you get to the nonsense you proffer. It isn't about taking it literally, it's about taking it seriously. Messing with the language isn't taking it seriously, it's trying to find excuse.
"There was nothing "mythical" about the flood "
Except for that whole "covered the entire earth" part, which, given the known amount of water on earth, is impossible.
It was a nasty localized event that occurred when the Mediterranean Sea finally overflowed the Bosporous, causing a Great Flood in the affected region.
"Evolution is in compliance with what the Bible states (not the other way around)."
That doesn't seem to contradict what I wrote.
The tone of your post is not appreciated
You seem to fancy yourself a scientifically sophisticated individual. However, you refuse to use the same standards of inquiry to determine the truth regarding Christianity. The only documentary evidence that is respected by all Christians is the Holy Bible.
For some reason you have decided to side with individuals who contradict the documentary evidence that they are claiming to believe. This, in itself, exposes your agenda is not a desire to seek the truth, but to willfully believe only what is right in your own mind.
The "Big Bang" has nothing to do with an actual "explosion". Try to learn some physics before you attempt to critique it, and don't just jump to incorrect conclusions based on the name.
Take some of your free time to determine if differing interpretations of the documentary evidence in the scriptures is the reason for the disparity of opinion regarding what the Bible says happened. You will quickly conclude that people who believe Biblical Theism and Evolution are compatible, are not scholars of integrity. They forgot to tell you that they have made up their own religion based on something other than what is written in the Bible.
Because neither Jesus nor the Apostles nor the prophets offered an opinion on whether the passages in Gensis must be taken as strictly literal history. Hence we turn to the Church fathers would were only a few generations removed from the Apostles. It's note complicated.
It isn't about taking it literally, it's about taking it seriously.
Nonsense. We take Genesis very seriously, even if we don't insist on six literal human days.
Hebrew scholars I know tell me the word used for "earth" doesn't necessarily mean the whole planet, but could also mean just large geographical area.
It was a nasty localized event that occurred when the Mediterranean Sea finally overflowed the Bosporous, causing a Great Flood in the affected region.
If that were the case, then it could not have wiped out the whole human race. I'm more inclined to speculate that it occurred in Africa somewhere very early in human history at a time when the entire human population was concentrated in a small enough area so that it could be potentially wiped out by a flood.
I conceed, though, that it's all speculation and impossible to know exactly when or where it occurred.
Texts, contrary to a delusion popular among Muslims and those Christians who stand outside the stream of Holy Tradition, are NOT self-interpreting.
Literalism is culture-bound. Neither Christ, nor the Holy Apostles clarify the odd usage of 'one day' in the Hebrew text of Genesis, while the Holy Scriptures themselves testify to the radical difference between God's relationship to time and ours. "A thousand years are but as yesterday when it is past." What then do we make of the 'days' in Genesis--days in our sense, or in God's? The Scriptures are silent on this point.
A great deal turns on what is literal and what is allegorical. I submit that the Holy Fathers who lived in the same culture as the Apostles and spoke the same Greek, who have moreove been judged by Christians down through the ages to have lived lives of great sanctity, have a better sense of that than those who read the Scriptures with the mind-set of modernity and in the delusion that they are self-interpreting. We Orthodox pray for our bishops that they be granted 'rightly dividing the word of Thy truth' in acknowledgement that right interpretation is not self-evident but to be done with certainty requires a charism.
The question of the Noahic flood was raised by others on the thread, and provides an example of the absurdity of literalism. Reading the Scriptures as if they were written by and for post-'Enlightenment' rationalists would have the entire face of the globe under water. But 'the whole world' the way it was actually used in ancient times (witness the usage 'Ecumenical Patriarch') meant the 'whole known world' or the 'whole civilized world'. We have good evidence of habitations on what is now the floor of the Black Sea (close to Mt. Ararat), and of a cataclysmic flooding by the opening of the Bosphorous, so the Noahic flood seems to be an account of the flooding of the whole world--in the ancient usage of that phrase, but not the modern.
Many people are unaware of what the Scripture has to say regarding beginnings. As I posted, Jesus Christ points out that God created men and women from the start of our universes history. This truth is confirmed throughout the Old and New Testament. Darwinian Evolution theory opposes what Jesus and the Scriptures say in this regard.
Mar 10:6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.
Also, the Old and New Testament present Adam as the first human being. It goes so far as to give the specific number of years the real Adam lived; dismissing the assertion that Adam was a mythical figure. Most Theistic Evolutionist's believe scripture allows for evolution to have brought Adam into existence. This is demonstrably unbiblical, and the point of my post.
You forget the custom among ancient and primitive peoples of regarding themselves as all of humanity (witness many linguistic usages--for a recent one Allemani, form which the French name for Germany is derived).
The Holy Scriptures were not composed by and for modern rationalists.
On the other hand, the days of creation may not be measures of time at all. They could be just a literary device to show the order of creation. First this, then that, then this and so on. I doubt many scientists would have any difficulty accepting the order in which creation is laid out in Genesis.
Do you have a point or do you just get your kicks out of showing you are a good Pharisee?
So you are claiming that God created each individual person and that their parents had nothing to do with it? If God can use parents to bring children into this world why not create natural processes like evolution.
Let's narrow it down the basics.Yes, it is absolutely wrong to rape babies. I conclude this logically because babies are the ultimate in helpless, innocent people. I do not want to live in a world where, if I'm in a helpless state, can be violated (whether by rape or robbery or something else) at will.Is it absolutely wrong to rape babies? If it is, then moral absolutes exist and we can continue from there.
From my experience, I confidently believe that this kind of security is a universal human value.
Emotionally, I am repelled at the thought of someone raping a baby. And because I have taken the effort to think through my moral philosophy, I understand why.
My intention was to call into question anyone claiming to be a Christian, who chooses to excessively contradict the source of their belief, and to raise these individuals up as the superior purveyors of truth. Anyone can pick up a Bible and determine that, as a whole, it completely contradicts Darwinian Evolution.
Denying the fact that scripture does not line up with Darwinism, demonstrates a willful desire to reinvent straightforward documentary evidence.
Consider:
Three police officers from three different agencies witnessed a criminal shoot a hostage during a standoff. During the trail a scientific expert testifies that the criminal could not have shot the hostage based on some sketchy forensic evidence. All three officers testify that they watched the perpetrator shoot the hostage.
Who are you going to believe. This discussion has always been about the reliability of the witness as opposed to the forensic evidence. Most Christians hold Gods testimony - which happens to not be outside of scientific possibility - over the tests done by persons who have a crime-scene that contains sketchy forensic evidence.
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.