Posted on 07/25/2007 12:57:22 PM PDT by mngran
Pope Benedict XVI said the debate raging in some countries — particularly the United States and his native Germany — between creationism and evolution was an “absurdity,” saying that evolution can coexist with faith.
The pontiff, speaking as he was concluding his holiday in northern Italy, also said that while there is much scientific proof to support evolution, the theory could not exclude a role by God.
“They are presented as alternatives that exclude each other,” the pope said. “This clash is an absurdity because on one hand there is much scientific proof in favor of evolution, which appears as a reality that we must see and which enriches our understanding of life and being as such.”
He said evolution did not answer all the questions: “Above all it does not answer the great philosophical question, ‘Where does everything come from?’”
Benedict also said the human race must listen to “the voice of the Earth” or risk destroying its very existence.
(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...
He had me until there. I, too, think that evolution is very real and also consistent with a world created according to The Plan. But micro-evolution, in which existing creatures undergo Darwinian pressures and the fittest survive and pass on their genes and characteristics. How one justifies macro-evolution, wherein new body parts like wings or eyes spontaneously spring into existence - fully functional, with the appropriate neural wiring - I don't know and cannot accept.
But the Earth does not have a voice (it makes sounds, but without any conscious direction, so the sounds ain't a voice). What's he smoking?
No offense, but this person doesn't have clue what they're talking about.
To wit:
Genesis 1:2
"And the earth was [Hebrew: hayah] without form and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep" The key word here is the first "was". As you can see, the second "was" is in italics which means that it was added by the translators. The same happens with many other passages of the Old Testament where the verb "to be" is printed in italics3. The reason that this happens is because there is no verb "to be" in the Hebrew language. Thus the translators had to supply it, when they thought it necessary. Now if this is so, we have to ask why the first "was" in the above passage is printed in Roman letters? The reason is because sometimes the translators chose to translate the verb "hayah" that is used there, as "to be". However, the verb "hayah" does not mean "to be". What it means is "to become", "to come to be" or "to come to pass4".
Here's is Strong's definition of the word in question:
1961 hayah haw-yaw
a primitive root (compare 1933); to exist, i.e. be or become, come to pass (always emphatic, and not a mere copula or auxiliary):— beacon, X altogether, be(- come), accomplished, committed, like), break, cause, come (to pass), do, faint, fall, + follow, happen, X have, last, pertain, quit (one-)self, require, X use.
As for Christians, they should take what the Bible states on the issue over what any human creature--even a bishop of Rome--has to say on it.
Either the whole Bible is to be taken literally or none of it is.How can one take Matthew 27:9-10 literally when the text cites a passage in Jeremiah that isn't there? Check it out for yourself.
--Resolute Conservative
If you can find the passage Matthew attributes to Jeremiah somewhere in Jeremiah I will consider taking the whole Bible literally as you do, if not, you should consider the possibility that your approach to scripture needs to be adjusted.
It's a big thing in Europe, and Mr. Ratzinger doesn't seem as inclined for world travel as his predecessor, so he could be more influenced by European views.
“Either the whole Bible is to be taken literally or none of it is.”
You must mean the Jewish Bible, the part that contains Genesis, the early part of which discusses the Creation. OK, fine. Just understand that Jewish Theology is a WHOLE lot more sophisticated than the 300,000 or so letters of the 5 Books of Moses would lead you to believe. There is the Mishneh Torah (Oral Torah/Law) which explains in great detail the obligations inherent in the letter of the law (much as regulations explain civil or criminal laws), and there are also other sources that can (and need to be) used to fully understand the 5 Books (as much as that is humanly possible). I don’t pretend to be an expert, but I’ve read enough to know that many thousands of years ago there were calculations done to show that the universe was, according to G-d’s word, some 15 3/4 billion years old. You just have to dig to find it...
Here’s a GREAT source of explanation of this matter, written by Dr. Gerald Schroeder, an astrophysicist who also happens to be a knowledgable, believing, Orthodox Jew:
http://www.geraldschroeder.com/age.html Here are a couple of excerpts:
“In trying to understand the flow of time here, you have to remember that the entire Six Days is described in 31 sentences. The Six Days of Genesis, which have given people so many headaches in trying to understand science vis-a-vis the Bible are confined to 31 sentences! At MIT, in the Hayden library, we had about 50,000 books that deal with the development of the universe: cosmology, chemistry, thermodynamics, paleontology, archaeology, the high-energy physics of creation. Up the river at Harvard, at the Weiger library, they probably have 200,000 books on these same topics. The Bible gives us 31 sentences. Don’t expect that by a simple reading of those sentences, you’ll know every detail that is held within the text. It’s obvious that we have to dig deeper to get the information out.
The idea of having to dig deeper is not a rationalization. The Talmud (Chagiga, ch. 2) tells us that from the opening sentence of the Bible, through the beginning of Chapter Two, the entire text is given in parable form, a poem with a text and a subtext. Now, again, put yourself into the mindset of 1500 years ago, the time of the Talmud. Why would the Talmud think it was parable? You think that 1500 years ago they thought that G-d couldn’t make it all in 6 days? It was a problem for them? We have a problem today with cosmology and scientific data. But 1500 years ago, what’s the problem with 6 days? No problem.
So when the Sages excluded these six days from the calendar, and said that the entire text is parable, it wasn’t because they were trying to apologize away what they’d seen in the local museum. There was no local museum. No one was out there digging up ancient fossils. The fact is that a close reading of the text makes it clear that there’s information hidden and folded into layers below the surface.”
_____________________
“There are early Jewish sources that tell us that the calendar is in two-parts (even predating Leviticus Rabba which goes back almost 1500 years and says it explicitly). In the closing speech that Moses makes to the people, he says if you want to see the fingerprint of G-d in the universe, “consider the days of old, the years of the many generations” (Deut. 32:7) Nachmanides, in the name of Kabbalah, says, “Why does Moses break the calendar into two parts - ‘The days of old, and the years of the many generations?’ Because, ‘Consider the days of old’ is the Six Days of Genesis. ‘The years of the many generations’ is all the time from Adam forward.”
Moses says you can see G-d’s fingerprint on the universe in one of two ways. Look at the phenomenon of the Six Days, and the development of a universe which is mind-boggling. Or if that doesn’t impress you, then just consider society from Adam forward - the phenomenon of human history. Either way, you will find the imprint of G-d.”
It is a LONG article, but very, very worth the time invested to understand that a literal reading of the Bible simply cannot be correct - both from a theological point of view and from a scientific one. Remember, G-d gave us a brain and senses to understand the world He created, and hands with which to build tools to enhance those senses in order to understand it better.
BTW, Schroeder wrote a book entitled, “Genesis and the Big Bang” which is a fascinating and informative read.
What science is that?
The major problem with that article is that it is taken from the King James Bible. Which was originally written in an older form of English, which we don’t fully understand (after all, gun-grabbers don’t understand the simplicity of the 2nd Amendment, and it is in much more modern English). And the King James version is taken from Latin (more loss of understanding), which was taken from Greek (more loss of understanding), which was taken from ancient Hebrew (more loss of understanding). Oh, and throw into the mixture that the English translation of Genesis in the King James is different from the English translation of Genesis from Jewish sources (partly because of religious differences from long, long ago). In other words, I give this article no chance of being correct.
Why bring the Bible into this? ;)
Yes, there are those 500 people who signed the Discovery Institute's vaguely worded petition. But that pales in comparison to the scientists that fully support evolution. Google "Project Steve" where about that same number of scientists named "Steve" or some variant signed a very specifically worded petition saying doubts about evolution were flat false. Since people named "Steve" represent about 1 percent of the population, and the two petitions have about the same number of signatories, that means that "scientists" that have some vague doubt about evolution represent about 1%.
If you think 1% is "many people", you have an odd way of thinking.
DEU 14:11-18 says that a bat is a bird.
A bat isn’t a bird.
Does that mean the rest of the bible isn’t to be taken literally?
A bat isn’t a bird, as DEU 14:11-18 insists. What’s up with that?
“He didn’t deny Scripture.”
“For in six days the LORD made the heavens and earth, the sea and all that is in them, and He rested the seventh day.”
Exodus 20
Yes, he did.
The King James NIV acknowleges the real meaning of the word hayah as meaning “became”:
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
Also, see Bullinger’s companion Bible for an accurate definition, explained in detail how it’s derived.
“He just denied Scripture.”
“Care to be more specific?”
There are tons of verses, but this one is in my memory and saves me from dragging the Bible out: “For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day.” (part of the fourth commandment, of the ten commandments, in Exodus 20. I remember it because I recite it every Sunday).
I'm not Catholic or Christian, but: No, he did not.
See post # 106 and the link to Gerald Schroeder's article on this very topic. Here's my paraphrase of ONE point that Schroeder made: there are hundreds of thousands of texts that describe our world and the universe as science understands it. The Creation in the Bible is 31 sentences. Do you REALLY think that 31 sentences is adequate to show G-d's fingerprints all over the universe?
Simply put, the Genesis account of Creation is an allegory. Jewish sages have known this for THOUSANDS of years - and it IS OUR BIBLE!
2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Macro-Evolution breaks that law. Macro-Evolution is a fantasy for atheists. It’s laughable that deniers have Macro-Evolution as a cornerstone of their belief system. Their best shot comes up empty.
I laugh loudly at the people who claim evolution is truth because “X” amount of people believe in evolution. That means you. How many “scientists” believed the Earth was round when that theory came out.
OFF WITH YOUR HEAD!
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.