I am starting to realise that one cannot be Christian yet reject young Earth creationism, Adam and Eve being the literal first humans, Genesis chapter 5, the Flood, the Tower of Babel, Joshua 10:12-14, etc. etc. etc. This not being real truly kills the faith and so do dinosaurs. Most Christians pretend it's not a massive problem and hate being reminded of it because they know it is, as I did. I used to do mental gymnastics to convince myself that it's not supposed to all be accepted as literal and almost went the polar-opposite way thinking "maybe modern scientific knowledge is all a lie" and nearly accept AnswersInGenesis' stuff but due to my love for science and intellectual honesty I feel that I need to stop lying to myself and playing dumb.
What I do know is that I am not starting to reject biblical history because the theology doesn't feel right to me and because "I want to sin without feeling guilty". I, without any doubt, accept Christian moral teachings and will surely continue to live my life striving to embrace the seven virtues and avoiding the seven sins. I just honestly have no genuine faith in stuff like the genealogy of Christ and yet it is extremely important to the faith. I will always love Him because He was undoubtedly a good man who did nothing but bring good to the world and continues to this day, His suffering inspires me, St. Paul makes me want it all to be real even more. I believe Christ is the most important human being to have ever existed and that the Christian faith has more value than any other religion. People unironically "need Jesus" as He is synonymous with "Good".
However, I just don't feel that it's true anymore, despite the faith of the apostles and despite all the signs which seem to confirm it. I used to tell myself "even if I found out it's false, I'll still convince myself that it's true because it has to be" but now I realise that it's a sad way of thinking. I love Christ and Christian theology, as well as Scripture which I will be reading all my life, but if the Flood didn't actually happen, it's not the true religion and Heaven and Hell as described in the Bible aren't real which means that even if there is an after-life, which I still believe there is, and that we have been faithful in this one till the end, we may never meet Him. He was a young Earth creationist Himself and if He was wrong about this, then He wasn't God incarnated and thus didn't rise from the dead. As St. Paul said: "…if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain." (1Cor.15:14)
Science is Satanic, the Bible is the truth. What it says is true, what is said outside of it is false. Let this guide all of your actions and you will come closer to God than ever before.
And the newly minted atheist declares Jesus to be the son of God. Why else would you call him synonymous with Good? You're apparently still doing mental gymnastics to defend your love for Christ, who was obviously just a lunatic according to your logic. If that's what you believe, then Christ certainly wasn't good, just insane, or a liar.
Also you haven't defended your reasoning for why Christ was a young earth creationist; as if you could know?
…is my rating
I'm speaking of formal and natural science. How is it "Satanic"? Why should I reject the findings of chemistry, physics, astronomy, cosmology, biology, paleontology, geology, etc.? Because it's scary? Is mathematics also evil because it's hard and so the computer you're using is "satanic"? This kind of response is embarrassing and just makes me want to roll my eyes. translation: What it says is true, what is said outside of it scares me because it's troubling for my weak faith so I'll pretend dinosaurs never existed despite physical evidence.
Your response is not intelligent (that's just a respectful euphemism) and it saddens me that you believe one must have this mindset to be closer to God.
Your assertion is not helpful and proves nothing. You wish to quarrel, but I know that only fool is quick to quarrel and that is better to be patient than a warrior.
Because they are false and the workings of Satan the deceiver. Why do you think these findings are true? Because an atheist told you so? This “science” works to dethrone God and cast Him into the confines of mythology along with Zeus. Beware of false prophets.
What do you mean? That's according to your (mis)understanding of what I said, due to your own logic. If He wasn't truly the Word made flesh, then He simply wanted to bring good to the world, as I said, and successfully did so, facilitated by His knowledge of Scripture which He extensively studied before starting His ministry at 30 years old, after proper preparation. If none of it is true, He wasn't a mere lunatic, He was very intelligent and good-willed.
How so? No. Science confirms the existence of God though it reveals that humans are not the center of His creation. In other words, science shows us the greatness of the creator of the Universe and dethrones humans whom it humbles.
“Science” (notice how you use the word so reverently as if it is God Himself) runs contrary to the Bible, more specifically Biblical cosmology and creation. You need to read up on how the world was truly created by God and liberate your mind from this Satanic deception. Isaiah 11:12 Revelation 7:12 Job 38:13 Job 9:6 Job 38:4 These verses all make clear that God created the Earth as flat with corners, held up on a foundation of pillars. There is no metaphor here, only what is written. Atheists are instruments of Satan to tempt your fate and lead you astray. Unless you want to end up in a lake of fire with them I advise you seriously begin to understand your Bible and not look for “metaphors” If you reject the word of God in favor of glorious “Science” you are not a Christian. Genesis 1:26
Tell that to Saint Augustine. He dedicates a large part of his Confessions to an allegorical interpretation of the creation story, and this was written in the 430s. Your salvation is not contingent on whether or not the creation story was literal, it is dependent on the blood of Christ. This has been recognized for 1600 years now. I don't really remember any passages where Jesus specifically says that it was literal, but even if He did that's not incompatible with old earth creationism. Christ freely admitted that there were things He didn't know during His incarnation, for example the date of the Second Coming. Christ was God, but He was constrained to a human body and brain, and a human brain obviously can't contain an omniscient conscious without constant miraculous intervention. If Christ ever said anything that might not be purely factual, this does not disturb my faith in His deity in the slightest. His ministry, His mighty works, and His ressurection all speak for themselves: Christ was who He said He was, and therefore still is.
Jesus could not lie. Are you accusing the Son of God of being a sinner?
If He wasn't the Word made flesh, then what is this "good" you speak of, which comes from outside the world through people? There is none, there is NOTHING outside the world, no God, no good, no truth, no justice. Truth, good and justice are relative, as every atheist will be sure to remind you. So how do you suppose that Christ came to stand for any of these concepts? On what authority do you say He is good? You have none to offer.
Mark 10:18, but because you're baiting and trying to stir up an argument which divides this board consistently between creationism and evolutionism, it is of course expected that you have an extremely tenuous grasp on theology in the first place. (Just enough to make people take the bad fruits you are offering, but not good enough to show bona fides)
None of what he said was heretical
As reverently as when I speak of things that are helpful to humanity. Yes, which is why the biblical accounts are problematic. I said that I am losing my faith so I wouldn't call myself Christian despite wanting Christianity to be true.
Did he say that Genesis chapter 5 is merely allegorical too? Pic related. (answersingenesis.org/jesus-christ/what-did-jesus-believe-about-creation/) His own genealogy is incompatible with old Earth creationism, pic related also. Certainly not concerning the past. Yet according to Scripture He could perform miracles such as walking on water, which would indicate that He wasn't. But it should because then He wouldn't be the incarnated Logos.
Yeah, I've been coming around to this too. I think only unserious Christians (cafeteria Catholics etc.) can accept evolutionism. If the Biblical creation story isn't literal, then what on Earth is Original Sin? How can there be Original Sin without a literal Adam to eat the literal fruit from the literal tree in the literal garden? And in that case, what did Christ need to save us from? Rejecting literal creation gives you a completely skewed view of Original Sin, and that one error infects everything else. If you think about it, evolutionism and wrong views of Original Sin are really at the heart of modernism and everything terrible that happened to the Catholic Church after Vatican II. This is why serious Catholics (the traditionalists) today are hard-core anti-evolutionists (especially the priests). Evolution is really not an incidental issue that can be hand-waved away but a direct attack on the core of Christianity. It undermines everything.
An imitation of His genuine innate benevolence. I say that He is good based on how Scripture describes Him and I don't need an authority to have a personal opinion, pal. I would say that I believe in God yet I must humbly admit that I don't know Him. However, to be the architect of the Universe makes Him so great that to attribute a positive adjective to Him is futile. When persons are referred to as being "good", they are not said to be sinless and immaculate, it is simply a way to describe them as being the opposite of an obviously evil person. I'm familiar with this passage btw. I'm not. I would if I rejected young Earth creationism as you do while still claiming to fully believe in Scripture. Is Genesis chapter 5 a bad fruit? Don't ignore this.
This is circular reasoning, Christ is good because you say he's good, you're right, you have a bunch of personal opinions, but what if I don't care about those?
Are we doing theology here or what? Don't give me that bullshit.
It is axiomatic that God is good, don't give me your deistic horseshit about the GAOU. Go join the Freemasons and get lost.
If you can't see the problem with this, you're a simpleton. Define "good" or "evil" without begging the question this time.
Really? What the hell does Genesis 5 have to do with it? Are we reading the same chapter? It's just a genealogy. I don't see the theological relevance.
The theological relevance would be that the geneaology is wrong if the Earth is billions of years old and Adam and Eve didn't exist.
This specific passage tells me that you never understood Christianity. We don't have this impersonal airy fairy Freemasonic Grand Architect, we have a personal, loving, good God that hears our prayers. I don't know this Grand Architect of whom you speak.
Give me one reason why I should care about a faulty genealogy? Do you think that the Bible is not the product of human hands?
So you think the Bible isn't the divinely inspired , inerrant word of God? That the Bible was written purely by human hands and not by human hands directed by the Holy Ghost? If the Bible is wrong in Genesis 5, how do you know it's not wrong about Jesus and salvation?
You see what I mean about the errors that evolutionism introduces into Christianity. It literally caused both of you to deny the inerrancy of Scripture, and once you've done that then you can pretty much make up whatever you want. Suddenly non-Christians are making it into Heaven and homosexuality isn't a sin anymore.
Also, yes Adam and Eve existed, but that doesn't mean that the universe had to be created in 7 days. Read St. Augustine, or Origen. Nobody ever thought that Genesis was to be taken literally until turboprots got a hold of the Bible with their 5 Solas and other depraved innovations.
Except I said that it's just my personal opinion. Are you being willfully stupid? I never claimed that my personal opinion is an objective fact. You clearly do since it bothers you so much. What do you think you're doing? Is Genesis chapter 5 a bad fruit yes or no? Huh? Good is the opposite of evil in the same way that cold is the opposite of hot.
Synonyms of architect: designer, planner, builder, originator, author, creator, instigator, founder, etc. spare me your autism, thank you. When did He create the Universe and when did He create the first humans? Scripture is extremely clear on this, what's your opinion?
Genealogies in the Bible is just meant to illustrate how people were related.
So according to you, when did Adam and Eve exist?
I'm the same poster, anyway, your idea of inerrancy requires literally everything to be perfect, and that's just not realistic given how the Bible came to be. (Something you should look up and think about, btw)
Alright, lay it on me, I'll say that the earth is 4 Billion years old, God's tool for our creation was evolution. Adam and Eve are our earliest ancestors who discovered the knowledge of Good and Evil, which allegorically ended our age of innocence and resulted in our appreciation of our own death and sin.
You don't believe it's realistic that the word of God written by the Holy Ghost would be perfect…? I ask you again, if you accept that any part of the Bible is mistaken, how do you know that the gospels aren't mistaken? Or do you even think that there are errors in the gospels?
You have no idea the amount of error even 500 witnesses can occasion. I've studied enough criminal evidence to say that were it not for my experiences of God, I would not believe the Gospel.
When and does all of humanity come from these two? Heretic. Wrong.
As for the effect of the Holy Ghost on Scripture, I agree, the Bible is perfect, but I won't consent to the idea that the people who wrote inspired texts were all brilliant mathematicians and biologists too.
It is necessary, from a biological standpoint, that we are all related to only 2 progenitors. If we call first man and first woman Adam and Eve, it is of necessity that we are related to none of their contemporaries.
That's why the inerrancy of scripture is essential to Christianity. You are treating the Bible like it's some kind of secular history book. This destroys faith. And it's your conviction that evolution must be true which causes you to abandon Biblical inerrancy. So we see here clearly manifested just one of the reasons why evolution is poisonous and inimical to Christianity.
On the contrary I would say I'm a faithful Christian. I pray frequently to a trinitarian God and sometimes pray the rosary, I have some difficulty with following biblical morality and I always rue it when I fail. You're just espousing a version of Christian theology that I just don't see as important. That's really all there is to it.
I daresay that's impossible, secular history (I am a trained historian as well) never makes moral judgements about the actions of persons in history.
I also do not abandon Biblical inerrancy, I just don't think that all people through whom the Holy Spirit speaks are that excellent at doing hard sums to find the age of the universe.
lmao what Practically every history book makes moral judgments. I'm talking about real books, not whatever Platonic ideal of the historian you've got inside your head. Are you a college student? OK… So you abandon Biblical inerrancy.
No, you are defining Biblical inerrancy in a way I reject, like a Jew, every letter to you has significance. It's just that whereas a Jew would see the numbers in Genesis 5 and start applying Biblical numerology to it, you've seen the numbers in the same genealogy and trying to make science fit into it.
Really the Jew at this point is more likely to have luck with his endeavor at this point. Good luck convincing the scientific establishment of your groundbreaking ignorance.
No they do not, least of all now where we have materialist dialectics, determinism and economics ruling the roost with their vacuous concept that history is mainly defined by markets and technology.
Why is Seth said to have fathered Enosh when he had lived exactly 105 years and then dying exactly 807 years later at the age of 912?
See the first image for what Scripture teaches: Now tell me, when and how were Adam and Eve born?
You can't define inerrancy to mean "has some minor errors." Inerrant means inerrant. Good luck trying to explain to Jesus why you had more faith in science than in him when he tells you to depart from him. What a retarded thing to say. It's almost like you don't read books.
That's your interpretation mate, I'm not bound by that. Besides, if God created us male and female from the beginning, he took at least 5 days before making us, hence we weren't from the beginning.
Then it could also be that our souls were made from the beginning, and only lately placed into bodies.
Before you say evolution(macro) was used tell me where was it observed that a beneficial mutation created new genetic material? If not macro evolution is a lie. Evolution requires death and suffering to work but there wsa no death before the Fall or before the original sin.
Even if you do believe in Young Earth Creationism, the sources you'll go to on the net are all KJV Onlyists and Masoretic adherents, who don't even follow the actual Church calendar set for the previous 2000 years, which differs by over 1000 years on the "age" of the Earth. Of course, the old Church dates would be Young Earth creationism as well, but there are significant differences in chronology.
Nice hellfire nonsense, good to see Protestantism is still going strong somewhere out there. Guess I'll be seeing you where I'm going.
The Holy Spirit never made anyone better at science.
Doesn't have to be, it could just be that we weren't aware of sin and death. We certainly sinned before the fall, or Adam and Eve wouldn't have needed to hide themselves. Therefore why not have death before the fall, and just have Adam and Eve ignorant?
Death and decay was created by Satan's fall first. Man and Woman had a choice to not be dragged down to his misery. Not that they originated death. They knew the significance of the Tree of Life and God's warning that they would die if they ate of the other tree.
No, it is what Scripture literally teaches and guess what? Christ reaffirmed this teaching!
As were the days of Noah, so will be the coming of the Son of man. For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day when Noah entered the ark, and they did not know until the flood came and swept them all away, so will be the coming of the Son of man. Matthew 24:37-39
…and the man He chose to be in charge of His flock on Earth also did (1 Peter 3:20).
The 5th of April is at the beginning of the month of April. Do you not see the issue if you believe that the Universe is billions of years old? Is humanity billions of years old?
Sorry to disrupt your attention whoring, but that passage doesn't mean that Noah had to happen historically either. You need to unplug your head from your rear and realize that Jesus was a Jew, talking with other Jews, who knew the same stories. Just because Jesus mentions Noah does not mean that anyone is verifying Noah's historicity as 100% fact.
It should also be pointed out that the Hebrew never says the "first day" in the early acts of Genesis.
"God called the light day, and the darkness He called night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day." - Gen 1:5
ONE DAY. Some translations (like the NIV and KJV) put "first day", but it doesn't mean first. It means one. And one day is like a thousand in the Lord's eyes.
The word is "ehad". One. And it isn't like Genesis is using it differently. Just a little bit later, it says man and woman become "one first". Not "first flesh".
Bleh. I meant "one flesh". Brainfart. Apologies.
Are you kidding me?
In a word, no. The Bible doesn't give you such a clear cut case. What do you even mean by beginning? Something can have beginnings longer than the actual thing itself.
Trips of truth
The theory that we were souls first is Gnostic and Kabbalah teaching fyi. That we were souls and the garden of Eden was actually in heaven.. and we were kicked out and the "skins" God made are our bodies we have now.
I don't recommend believing that, but it's nothing new.
Hear O Israel, the Lord is our God, the Lord is ONE.
Not to say "first day" is a bad translation. But it can be a little interpretative. It very well might be the "first day", but that's not what the Scripture says. And you can still say Scripture is Inerrant, but not necessarily a Translation.
The Gospel does not rest or crumble based on the age of the Earth. Pull yourself together. The Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed never mentions the age of the Earth. The canons of the Ecumenical Councils only state that Adam and Eve were the first couple and we inherit original sin from them, which must be removed with Baptism. What I mean is that the part of the Genesis creation narrative that is most important is that we have fallen, our nature is disfigured, and we must be saved. The age of the Earth may be a legitimate issue, but it shouldn't be a faith-shattering one. The Trinity and the Incarnation are at the top of the list, the exactitude or implications of the historical narratives in the Bible is rather far down the list in comparison (even if, again, it can remain an important issue).
You think I'm happy about Christianity being false? I just want to cry. 1 Corinthians 15:19 The Flood is not 100% fact and my Second Coming will be the same as the Flood. t. your interpretation of Matthew 24:37-39
Do you not realise that this is what you're saying Christ claimed? That His Second Coming actually happening is not 100% fact? If the Flood happened, so will the Second Coming. Now tell me, did pic related happen (i.e. a global flood exterminating all of humanity except 8 people and 2 animals of each specie as per explicit biblical teaching)? Yes or no?
The Bible says there were about 6000 years from Adam up to the present, and that God created Adam in his image. Science (evolutionism) claims the first humans originated hundreds of thousands of years ago, and that Adam and Eve, if they existed, were birthed by semi-monkeys. You see the issue here, right? It's not just about the age of the Earth.
I had the same doubts, plus more and stopped believing last week. I'm a cultural Catholic now.
Science does not claim Adam and Eve even existed. Science does not really "claim" anything, it only observes and deduces, without making philosophical speculation about human nature. I would say that there is a much bigger problem than whether Adam and Eve were made from earth or were born from semi-monkeys, and it is that death existed before humanity, according to science, while the Bible and the Fathers clearly state otherwise. Nonetheless, we should stick to what the ecumenical councils say, and they say nothing about the age of the Earth. They do say that Adam and Eve were the first couple of humans, that we inherit original sin from them, and that death did not exist before then. But at the same time, remember that the fall was a cosmic event, that disfigured all of creation and not only human nature. Remember also that Paradise cannot be located on a map now, and if it could, that would mean we could find Jesus, Abraham, and the good thief chilling there. Science tells us what can be observed in this fallen reality, but the Bible tells us the real reality of things, as God sees them and communicates them to us. So, in my opinion, it doesn't really matter what science says or not - it observes a fallen world and therefore makes anti-Chistian conclusions. Not that what it says has to be wrong, but it's irrelevant to us, because we are not of this world.
correction: I just realised that if the Flood never happened, then Christianity is false. Why is Seth said to have fathered Enosh when he had lived exactly 105 years and then dying exactly 807 years later at the age of 912? Is what Scripture explicitly state as fact "Protestant theology"? Yours is heterodox; it is contrary to apostolic teaching. I embraced Catholicism. Nice strawmanning though.
The question is, did it actually happen? If so, is other cultures' account as valid as the Book of Genesis'? Will you buy a book about it for your children?
That would make you an impostor, friend. You don't have to accept that masturbation, pornography, fornication, prostitution, adultery, abortion, sodomy, bestiality, pedophilia, transgenderism, suicide, etc. is a-ok now. Catholic moral teaching is still correct.
You do realise that the Flood is supposed to have happened after the Fall, right?
Look into Hugh Ross and old earth creationism. reasons.org
Yes, and I believe it happened the way the Bible describes it. But that's not what we're talking about here, is it? The topic is about the age of the earth and the historicity of Adam and Eve. Simply enough, I do not care what science says. Science is not divine revelation. We don't ask scientists to celebrate the liturgy. The Church Fathers dealt with theology, not with science. It is less that science and the Bible clash, and more that they address two different things, and only one is important for our salvation.
Do you believe your great ^500,000,000 grandfather was a fish? You look at yourself and think you came from a monkey that came from from a rodent that came from a fish that came from a sponge that came from a cell that came from nothing?
Why do you keep bringing up the flood? Not a single person in this thread has denied that it happened.
Yes, good point. That makes coexistence between Christianity and evolutionism even more untenable.
Hmm, interesting point of view. Can you remember where you read about this doctrine?
For behold, I will bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh in which is the breath of life from under heaven; everything that is on the earth shall die. Genesis 6:17
And the waters prevailed so mightily upon the earth that all the high mountains under the whole heaven were covered; the waters prevailed above the mountains, covering them fifteen cubits deep. And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, birds, cattle, beasts, all swarming creatures that swarm upon the earth, and every man; everything on the dry land in whose nostrils was the breath of life died. He blotted out every living thing that was upon the face of the ground, man and animals and creeping things and birds of the air; they were blotted out from the earth. Genesis 7:19-23
I didn't read about it anywhere, it's my own interpretation, although I found that one article gets close to this: orthodox-theology.com/media/PDF/1.2017/Alexander.Khramov.pdf I also heard that St Maximus the Confessor makes a similar case somewhere - that the reality of the world before the fall is very different from the reality of the world after the fall, and the divine revelation of the scriptures is the only way we can "reach back" into the pre-fallen world, so to speak (and, at the last judgment, the world will return to its original purity).
I was told that all I needed to get into heaven was faith, works, and the Nicene-Cosmopolitan creed. Nice opinions though, shouldn't you have recognized that Noah's flood is less problematic than a man living 912 years? No animal known to science has ever lived so long.
If only Moses knew how much grief Genesis would cause the world, he might not have written it.
You can't claim to have faith yet reject scriptural teachings; you lack faith. God could make any man live this long, however we know for a fact that the Earth is not 6000 years old. When do you believe Adam was born? Was Enosh his grandson? Was Mahalalel Enosh's grandson? Was Enoch Mahalalel's grandson? Was Lamech Mahalalel's grandson and Noah Mahalalel's son? Do I need to remind you of Christ's genealogy as well? Is Christ's genealogy a lie?
I know this is an unpopular opinion here, but everything before Abraham is clearly allegory. Just think with your God-given brain, two of every animal couldn't possibly fit on a single boat. Trees and rocks can be dated to before Genesis 1. But just because they didn't literally happen doesn't mean they aren't true. These stories reveal deep truths about the human condition, that's why they're important.
Since the Flood is an allegory, is Christ's Second Coming also an allegory? What do they say about original sin?
Why are you not addressing ?
So there was never actually an Adam who sinned in the Garden of Eden? Then what happens to Original Sin? How did sin enter into the world? And what exactly did Jesus have to save us from?
When and how did sin enter into the world?
Everything before Abraham is literal, and symbolic, and the symbolic signification is often much more important than the literal, but to call it allegorical is simply an insult to the text. The Song of Songs is an allegory. The history in the book of Genesis is not. I can only accept that the events portrayed before the Fall are to be understood in a spiritual and "allegorical" way, because the reality of the world was significantly different and beyond our grasp in the way we are now, and even some Fathers accept this (Augustine didn't think the world was created in 6 24-hour days, but rather instantly; John Chrysostom didn't think that Eve was literally taken from a rib of Adam, but that this symbolizes a spiritual reality that we cannot understand now). But after the Fall, things are given times, numbers, and locations.
I don't understand. Do you believe the world was created fallen, or…?
No, Jesus comparing the events of the flood to the apocalypse doesn't mean they both have to be literally true or both be allegory. One can be allegory and the other can be true prophecy. I'm not really qualified to speak on this, but I think Adam and Eve eating the fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil is a metaphor for humanity choosing to disobey God and make their own rules about good and evil. That is the sin that leads to all other sins, or original sin.
I'm willing to accept that only the events pre-fall are allegory, but is there any explanation for how two of every animal and all the food they needed fit on to one boat?
Hes trolling, to make christians look bad. It's a false flag.
No true follower of Christ has any reason to disavow the truth of the world and universe. They are all of His design.
It's rare to have to say this, but put down your Bible. The Bible is given to preserve the truth held by the Church. If you aim is to have the faith of the Apostles and Fathers, read the Bible like they read it. Literalism was never their focus. Read Irenaeus, On the Apostolic Preaching. It's short and SVS has a good English translation. The typological read was the predominant read in early Christianity.
what is """real""" and how do presume to prove it even "dubito, ergo cogito, ergo sum" attempts to constrain meaning with fallible language to wishfully purport that a fallible mind is capable of identifying concurrent processes and is not merely beguiled by demons, philosophical or literal. You cannot prove your own existence, and have the gall to doubt God's? Science can dig up and date as much it wants - in futility. Until the people doing it can affirm their own existence, who can affirm the veracity of their observations? How can you your own? So it is that "logic" has no logical basis; only faith, blind faith, in another false prophet.
Human observation does not derive from reality; it shapes it - truth a lie, history a pliable fiction - the earth planar one era and an interstellar rotundity the next.The physical world has been as lead away from the bible as its inhabitants. Be not misled by particulars of fact; place your faith in the Almighty God and let what He validates be, without concession.
Do not arrive at this conclusion after a wasted decade of atheism and godless philosophy as I have. Knowledge is impossible; eat and be glad.
I don't know. I can't say I have thought about it. This was a point in history of high crisis and high importance, and the Biblical author was not there to witness it but received it as a revelation from God. Maybe it is better kept a mystery to meditate upon, like how no one has seen the Resurrection, but by faith we know it is true?
The Fathers were almost exclusively concerned with typological/symbolic reading, but very few are those who do not also recognize these events as historical and literal. In fact they tend to do so to the detriment of the implications within the scriptures themselves - like understanding the 6 days of creation to be literal 24-hour days, and there to be a simple linear continuity in time from before the fall to after the fall. Augustine and Gregory of Nyssa tend toward doubting the literal-ness of some parts of the scriptures (usually with the reason that it does not fit the character of God as we know it and must therefore be an allegory). But they're exceptions. Most Fathers, when they feel the need to address the historicity of every part of the Bible, defend it to their last breath (with some exceptions - I'm not aware of any one of them who says that Nabuchednezzar in Judith is really Nabuchednezzar, for example).
Are you blind? Except it isn't futile and we have learned so much. Why do you hate education? Well this sums up your silly post. I never said "Christianity must be false because of logic", my argument is not "logic". Stop strawmanning. This is not a mystery anymore. Nonsense. If God Almighty is the one preached about in Scripture, the Earth is 6000 years old and I know that to be false. This doesn't lead to atheism but rather to a simple rejection of Christian theology. I arrive to the conclusion that Adam isn't the first man and that the Flood didn't happen based on the findings of natural science.
Or maybe it should be investigated so we can either confirm whether it is true or find out it didn't actually happen, no? The truth doesn't fear investigation, right? We don't want to be dishonest obscurantists, right?
Investigate it how? Divine revelation and paleontology are not the same subject and do not answer the same questions. I did not say that it is not true, but that the manner in which it is true may not be something we can answer with words. Although, as far as the date and the gravity of the event are concerned, I 100% side with the scriptures here, if science disagrees then the scientific observation is incorrect. The scriptures put the flood as happening in 3135 BC, and the Fathers never suggest that the flood was not actually a worldwide event, on the contrary (to my knowledge anyway). I'm ready to be accused of dishonest obscurantism for this. I trust the Word of God more than the observations and judgment of sinners, however. Not that it's a big deal either way, because the topic of historicity of the Bible literally never comes up in my life. That's not what we should concern ourselves with. It's practically a footnote. God is there, here and now, waiting for our response to His call, and the Holy Spirit will give us full understanding in this way.
Actually, that's true.
So you don't care about the Scriptures being true or not, you just want to accept them as fact regardless of their veracity. How old is pic related? Except we should, due to the unsettling findings of natural sciences. Yes, but is the Bible true? Let's find out!
We know, from the Holy Spirit inspiring the Church for centuries, that they are true. What scientists observe is their problem.
I don't know, or care, really.
Again, natural sciences are not theology. They are not liturgy. They are not sacraments. The Lord did not tell us to be concerned with that. But if they attack the testimony of the Church, do you want to side with them or with Christ? I know Who I want to side with, because we know the world will reject us, but He has conquered the world.
If you care about the truth, their findings are a big problem for you actually. translation: I don't want to know because I'm scared.
Did the Flood happen during Noah's lifetime? Did the Flood not happen only 10 generations after Adam? When was Adam born? How old is the Earth? How old is pic related? I'll tell you, he first appeared about 200 million years ago!
The question to ask is: if the Earth is proven to be about 4.5 billion years old and the Sun about 4.6 billion years old, how can we trust Scripture? user, I…
Jesus Christ is the truth, and we already know Him. Do scientists have a hidden sacrament that we did not receive?
Scared of what? Scared of losing my salvation? But the Church already gives us the means to be saved.
I recommend you read my other posts in this thread. I'm not going to entertain you if you are going to be rude, however. We are still in the period of Lent.
I am exercising the full extent of my patience in humouring the idea that this is not trolling.
Science is not infallible so long as it is in the hands of fallible human observers like yourself. You are fallible because you cannot prove your own existence. A false measuring tool falsifies the science it supports, ergo as all human measurement is false, all science is false. Your unfounded belief in it is tantamount to faith, and faith dictates reality. The earth was literally, physically, demonstrably flat. The earth was 6000 years old, was consumed by a flood, was host to Babel, etc. But without faith in God, it currently, in our subjective reality, is not. A godless generation has corrupted the past as much as they have the present with their faith in false prophets, and you insist on counting yourself amongst them.
You know nothing. You are incapable of knowing anything. You must prove an "I" exists before you dare claim it "knows" anything, and the wisest men dead and alive will bow their heads to hear you speak if you ever can.
I applied myself to the understanding of wisdom, and also of madness and folly, but I learned that this, too, is a chasing after the wind. For with much wisdom comes much sorrow; the more knowledge, the more grief. Ecclesiastes 1:17-18
>It could just be that we weren't aware of sin and death. We certainly sinned before the fall. Sorry God said as soon as they eat(sin/fall) they shall die not before. God didn't make it a mystery where we would't be aware he addressed humans directly on the subject. And yes they started hiding but after eating the fruit. You only need death before to make evolution work that's all. Again where was it observed that a beneficial mutation created new genetic material?
Should all of our scientific findings and technological advancements be discarded? Scared that your understanding of reality is false.