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<<
I agree the idea of one species changing into another but the progression of fossils shows clearly that new species did appear and they always are similar to another existing species. It would probably be easier for us if humans could better comprehend how long 10,000,000 years is.
In any case its much like the earth orbiting the sun. It doesn’t feel right and it doesn’t match what our ancestors thought but it matches all the available evidence and nothing else does.
Because evolution is successfully used to predict where to find new species and where to find oil and coal we need to think of it as the only good working theory - it needs refinement but the basic principle that modern species developed from older much more similar species is clearly true -it was just a lot slower than your description.
>>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?<<
Yeah, that did sound kind of new-agey but this Pope is not new age at all. It makes me wonder if there was an idiom problem in the translation from Italian or Latin or whatever he was speaking.
Biblically, man was given dominion over the earth. Likewise I was given dominion over my cat and dog. But I do have responsibility for them and I do listen to their complaints and look out for their welfare. I just wouldn’t use the phrase “voice of the earth” because of its connotations. But the Pope probably didn’t either - he said something in some other language that got translated.
Spending years of one’s life trying to prove God’s Word wrong is foolish. And detrimental to one’s life after death. Imagine man saying God’s Word isn’t true because man ‘can’t find something’ after hundreds of years of search. Man is so overrated in their ‘smarts’. What a prideful bunch. Instead of searching for a personal relationship with God which He wants, man is searching for proof of what happened thousands of years ago. Personally, I hope someone finds their little treasure - because that, too, won’t be enough evidence - something will still be ‘wrong’ with it.
“If you have something to refute that, then, by all means, post it.”
Already did, by referring to the NIV translation and Bullinger’s companion bible. But if that’s not enough for you, see the following scriptures:
Genesis 2:7
And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and man became (hayah) a living soul.
Genesis 19:26
But his wife looked back from behind him, and she became (hayah) a pillar of salt.
Genesis 24:67
And Isaac brought her into his mother Sarah’s tent, and took Rebekah, and she became (hayah) his wife; and he loved her: and Isaac was comforted after his mother’s death.
Post #106, that you reference, includes:
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...Your timeframe from post #106 seems pretty good. I have been aware of that for some time.
However, I have a problem with mathematicians and other "numbers" scientists prognosticating in the fields of paleontology and evolution.
To put it bluntly, they don't have a clue.
To model a system one must understand all of the variables of that system, and the exact interrelationships among the variables. Tell me, what amount of biological training is normal for mathematicians? Close to none? Right.
And could anyone today specify the exact variables to model, and their correct interrelationships? Not a chance. Not even biologists and paleontologists, who know the most about the subject, are so bold as to claim to know all of the variables, let alone their correct interrelationships.
This reminds me of the mathematical proof that bumblebees can't fly (I know it's a myth, but it still retains a truth about mathematicians, their craft, and its application to the natural world -- in other words, don't bet the rent money on it!)
I am sorry to have to tell you this, but some of what you believe has been shown to be incorrect.
The bible is a religious document, not a scientific text. It has not been shown to be completely accurate, as some would have us believe.
The global flood at 4350 years ago is one of the better examples. Science has found no evidence to support the contention of a flood at that date. The early geologists, pretty much all creationists, gave up about 1830. More recently, archaeologists and sedimentologists (more suited to the study than geologists) have come to the same conclusion.
“If you think you can do a literalistic reading of the bible in a single modern language you and know what the original message was, you are nuts.”
If you think we need master’s degrees in linguistics to interpret the Hebrew word for “day,” you are nuts.
I think God is good. I think He wrote His Bible perfectly, to communicate to us our history and His will for us. To assume he would make it all mysterious and difficult to understand assumes that he likes to confuse people. In that case, why leave us the Bible at all?
“Do you REALLY think that 31 sentences is adequate to show G-d’s fingerprints all over the universe?”
Do you REALLY think God is inadequate in describing His creation to us? What, He’s not a good enough communicator for you or something?
sf367: For the love of God, when will people quit repeating this same falsehood? It takes less than 5 seconds worth of knowledge to realize that it's wrong.
True. Does this give you some idea of the education of the people who repeat it?
Not weak at all and I can stay on the subject of evolving, if you want to change the subject to surviving, we can discuss that.
Do you really think our written language is sufficient?
I think it’s just plain stubbornness. Some people simply believe any creationist claim put forth because in their minds evolution just has to be evil and wrong.
it is unfortunate when the uninformed comment on the nature of a debate. The issue of evolution’s validity is in no way settled...and directly contradicts the Scriptures He reads. Too bad!
Good question. I don't know. But, I just did a search, and it appears "voice of the earth" is used as a name for environmental groups and titles for writings on ecology.
Any reading even of the limited MSN article is hard to miss the logical basis of the Pope’s comments as he’s citing natural law.
Ironically, you were replying to the poster natural law, yet that irony seems to have escaped you entirely.
Citations on the laws of the earth, re: science such as physics is hardly beyond the understanding of most people. Or to put it in a more simple literal analogy: if you fish all the fish out of the lake, there will be no fish for anyone.
I’m starting to see a pattern here. And it’s humorous except it’s written as serious thought.
I'm not saying you need post grad work in linguistics, theology, and anthropology, you just need to consider the interpretations from those who have. This has been the role of the Catholic hierarchy for centuries comprised of the most intelligent and educated persons in Europe. I am certainly more likely to accept the opinions of Pope Benedict XVI, who follows in this tradition than any other source.
As to the meaning of the Hebrew word Day you need to be more specific. Hebrew is not an enduring constant. It has changed, morphed, and evolved over time as it contacted other language groups, cultures, and people and continues to have regional variants to this day. Hebrew is a Semitic language, and as such a member of the larger Afro-Asiatic phylum.
Within Semitic, the Northwest Semitic languages formed around the 3rd millennium BC, grouped with the Arabic languages as Central Semitic. The Canaanite languages are a group within Northwest Semitic, emerging in the 2nd millennium BC in the Levant, gradually separating from Aramaic and Ugaritic.
Within the Canaanite group, Hebrew belongs to the sub-group also containing Edomite, Ammonite and Moabite and is is a distinct Canaanite dialect. Another Canaanite sub-group contains Phoenician and its descendant Punic.
The first written evidence of distinctive Hebrew, the Gezer calendar, dates back to the 10th century BC at the beginning of the Monarchic Period, the traditional time of the reign of David and Solomon. Classified as Archaic Biblical Hebrew, the calendar presents a list of seasons and related agricultural activities. The Gezer calendar (named after the city in whose proximity it was found) is written in an old Semitic script, akin to the Phoenician one that through the Greeks and Etruscans later became the Roman script. The Gezer calendar is written without any vowels, and it does not use consonants to imply vowels even in the places where later Hebrew spelling requires it.
The Shebna lintel, from the tomb of a royal steward found in Siloam, dates to the 7th century BC. Numerous older tablets have been found in the region with similar scripts written in other Semitic languages, for example Protosinaitic. It is believed that the original shapes of the script go back to the hieroglyphs of the Egyptian writing, though the phonetic values are instead inspired by the acrophonic principle. The common ancestor of Hebrew and Phoenician is called Canaanite, and was the first to use a Semitic alphabet distinct from Egyptian. One ancient document is the famous Moabite Stone written in the Moabite dialect; the Siloam Inscription, found near Jerusalem, is an early example of Hebrew. Less ancient samples of Archaic Hebrew include the ostraka found near Lachish which describe events preceding the final capture of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar and the Babylonian captivity of 586 BC.
In its widest sense, Classical Hebrew means the spoken language of ancient Israel flourishing between the 10th century BC and the turn of the 4th century AD. It comprises several evolving and overlapping dialects. The phases of Classical Hebrew are often named after important literary works associated with them.
Archaic Biblical Hebrew from the 10th to the 6th century BC, corresponding to the Monarchic Period until the Babylonian Exile and represented by certain texts in the Hebrew Bible (Tanach), notably the Song of Moses (Exodus 15) and the Song of Deborah (Judges 5). Also called Old Hebrew or Paleo-Hebrew. Historically, it used a form of the Canaanite script.
Biblical Hebrew around the 6th century BC, corresponding to the Babylonian Exile and represented by the bulk of the Hebrew Bible that attains much of its present form around this time, give-or-take. Also called Classical Biblical Hebrew (or Classical Hebrew in the narrowest sense). It adopted the Imperial Aramaic script.
Late Biblical Hebrew from the 6th to the 4th century BC, that corresponds to the Persian Period and is represented by certain texts in the Hebrew Bible, notably the books of Ezra and Nehemiah. Dead Sea Scroll Hebrew from the 3rd century BC to the 1st century AD, corresponding to the Hellenistic and Roman Periods before the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem and represented by the Qumran Scrolls that form most (but not all) of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Commonly abbreviated as DSS Hebrew, also called Qumran Hebrew. The Imperial Aramaic script of the earlier scrolls in the 3rd century BC evolved into the Hebrew square script of the later scrolls in the 1st century AD, still in use today. Mishnaic Hebrew from the 1st to the 3rd or 4th century AD, corresponding to the Roman Period after the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem and represented by the bulk of the Mishnah and Tosefta within the Talmud and by the Dead Sea Scrolls, notably the Bar Kokhba Letters and the Copper Scroll. Also called Tannaitic Hebrew or Early Rabbinic Hebrew.
Sometimes the above phases of spoken Classical Hebrew are simplified into "Biblical Hebrew" (including several dialects from the tenth century BC to 2nd century BC and extant in certain Dead Sea Scrolls) and "Mishnaic Hebrew" (including several dialects from the 3rd century BC to the 3rd century AD and extant in certain other Dead Sea Scrolls). However today, most Hebrew linguists classify Dead Sea Scroll Hebrew as a set of dialects evolving out of Late Biblical Hebrew and into Mishnaic Hebrew, thus including elements from both but remaining distinct from either. By the start of the Byzantine Period in the 4th century AD, Classical Hebrew ceases as a spoken language, roughly a century after the publication of the Mishnah, apparently declining since the aftermath of the catastrophic Bar Kokhba War around 135 AD.
The term Classic Hebrew generally refers to the Hebrew dialects found in the Talmud תלמוד, excepting quotations from the Hebrew Bible. The dialects organize into Mishnaic Hebrew (also called Tannaitic Hebrew, Early Rabbinic Hebrew, or Mishnaic Hebrew I), which was a spoken language, and Amoraic Hebrew (also called Late Rabbinic Hebrew or Mishnaic Hebrew II), which was a literary language.
The earlier section of the Talmud is the Mishnah משנה that was published around 200 AD and was written in the earlier Mishnaic dialect. The dialect is also found in certain Dead Sea Scrolls. Mishnaic Hebrew is considered to be one of the dialects of Classical Hebrew that functioned as a living language in the land of Israel.
A transitional form of the language occurs in the other works of Tannaitic literature dating from the century beginning with the completion of the Mishnah. These include the halachic Midrashim (Sifra, Sifre, Mechilta etc.) and the expanded collection of Mishnah-related material known as the Tosefta תוספתא. The Talmud contains excerpts from these works, as well as further Tannaitic material not attested elsewhere; the generic term for these passages is Baraitot. The dialect of all these works is very similar to Mishnaic Hebrew.
About a century after the publication of the Mishnah, Mishnaic Hebrew fell into disuse as a spoken language. The later section of the Talmud, the Gemara גמרא, generally comments on the Mishnah and Baraitot in Aramaic. Nevertheless, Hebrew survived as a liturgical and literary language in the form of later Amoraic Hebrew, which sometimes occurs in the text of the Gemara.
In which version of Hebrew was the word "day" used and did it have any other ancillary meanings such an undefined period of time, a period of light or light and dark, an era or reign, a series of events connected by a single theme or event?
Already did...
No, you didn't.
I asked you to refute Strong's definition, which includes the concept "to be," which your article says is not part of the definition.
I can't make it any simpler than that. If you still don't understand, then don't bother responding because I just don't have the patience tonight....
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.