Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: Mrs. Don-o
Quite the contrary: actual scientific evidence (i.e. that which conforms to the actual physical reality of the natural world, when correctly interpreted) is just as authoritative as Scripture (the Biblical texts, correctly interpreted). This is because the Book of Nature and the Book of Scripture both have the same Author, God Himself, working through natural secondary causes; and God is reasonable and coherent, and tells a consistent, well-ordered testimony of Himself and His works.

Let me guess: by "correctly interpreted" you mean the first eleven chapters of Genesis reduced to "didactic mythology" because they clash with "science," am I correct?

Why don't you allow "science" to sit in judgment on the virgin birth, the resurrection of J*sus, etc.? Why do you suddenly throw "science" away when it tells you such things could not have possibly happened? Why are only the first eleven chapters of Genesis thrown into the garbage can?

Talk about inconsistency in the use of "science" to overrule the Bible!

15 posted on 06/06/2013 8:46:21 AM PDT by Zionist Conspirator (Ki-hagoy vehamamlakhah 'asher lo'-ya`avdukh yove'du; vehagoyim charov yecheravu!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]


To: Zionist Conspirator
The Bible and the natural sciences are in agreement when correctly interpreted. If you see an obvious discrepancy, you -- not God, you --- are in error in the way you are interpreting either the physical or the Scriptural evidence.

Neither I nor the Catholic Church "throw the first 11 chapters of Genesis in the garbage can."

For instance, there are at least 4 different ways to interpret the word "day" in the Creation accounts. The Catholic Church does not rule for or against any one of them as a matter of dogma.

There are likewise a half a dozen major, different ways to account for the biological diversity of life on earth. (Here I'm including even wild ones like Francis Crick's idea of "panspermia.") Catholic Church does not rule for or against any one of them as a matter of dogma, either.

I think the Cathoic Church shows an admirable and humble restraint in areas where our knowledge is so decisively incomplete.

But we've been around the block on this several times before, ZC. I will refrain from getting into it with you again.

27 posted on 06/06/2013 10:10:42 AM PDT by Mrs. Don-o (En arche en ho Logos kai ho Logos, en pros ton Theon kai Theos en ho Logos. John 1:1)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson