Enter your email address to receive updates by email:

subscribe in a reader like my facebook page follow me on twitter Image Map
Podcast Message Line: 512-222-3389
Logos Catholic Bible Software

« The Framework Interpretation | Main | St. Blase Questions »

February 02, 2006

Comments

Jeb Protestant

I don't understand why Rome has such a high opinion of the "church fathers" except when it comes to Mosaic authorship of Genesis, 6 day creation, Danielic authorship of Daniel, Pauline authorship of the Pastorals, etc.

On those issues they were apparently all wrong.

DiscoMike

Who says that Rome discounts what the Church Fathers had to say about "Mosaic authorship of Genesis, 6 day creation, Danielic authorship of Daniel, Pauline authorship of the Pastorals, etc."?

There are various theologians (who are not speaking with Magisterial authority) who have debated these topics, but to say that "Rome" discounts these things is A) a bit sweeping, and B) a bit misleading, don't you think?

bill912

Jeb Protestant: I'm not clear on what you are trying to say. Are you saying that the Catholic Church denies Mosaic authorship of Genesis, et al? Or are you saying that you don't have a high opinion of the Church Fathers except for on the topics you listed?

"On those issues they were apparently all wrong." I'm not clear on who "they" are.

Jeb Protestant

In Cardinal Ratzinger's book Called to Communion he indicates that he doesn't think Paul wrote the Pastorals. In The God of Jesus Christ, he believes Daniel was written in the third century BC. In In the Beginning he says some parts of Genesis may be old, but much of it is later.

My books are in storage pending a move, so I'm sorry I can't give page numbers.

Discomike

I have not read the book, so I cannot agree or disagree with your statements, however it is important to point out that Cardinal Ratzinger's book is not a Magisterial Teaching of the Church, and is therefore not the voice of "Rome" as you earlier stated.

Pseudomodo

Jimmy are you going to be commenting on Gerald Schroeders hypothesis someday??

http://www.geraldschroeder.com/age.html

mich

Interesting subject Jim;I personally am a believer of The Day-Ages theory.

I could use the scriptures to identify a 4.6 billion years old earth...would it be a correct interpretation is another question. In Genesis, there are two different definitions for a Day.
God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.
The first definition is the time when light hits upon a place on the earth (God called the light "day," ). This is the time when God
is actively creating, so we'll call it a Lord's Day. However a Genesis Day is twice as long as it involves the night time as well (And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.)

Now,if we take the words of Peter: A Day for the Lord (Lord's Day) is as a thousand years.

Some Jews read this litterally, and so, I "personally" accept it...

http://www.chabad.org/library/article.asp?AID=108400

"However, the Talmud states that there is a predestined time when Mashiach
will come. If we are meritorious he may come even before that predestined
time. This "end of time" remains a mystery, yet the Talmud states that it
will be before the Hebrew year 6000. (The Hebrew year at the date of this
publication is 5763.)"


And so 2 Peter 3:8-9 reads:

"But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like
a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. The Lord is not slow
in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness..."

He is speaking to the chrisitans who are impatiently waiting for the coming
of Christ,having been told that they were living in the last Days....Here,
Peter seems to be claiming, the last Days, as meaning the next couple of
thousands of years, being in accordance with the Jewish Talmud. Therefore,
if 1 Day litterally can be 1,000 years, then if we continue his statement
"and a thousand years are like a day". Either he is speaking of
timelessness, which is possible, or, if he takes a Day to be 1,000 years in
the litteral sense, than, 1,000 years equalling a Day could also be meant to
be taken litterally. If so, then he
must be speaking of 2 separate and disntinct type of Days. The first mention
of Day is symbolically equal to 1,000 years. Now, he maybe saying that 1,000
years "of such a Day" is equal to the 2nd definition of Day, and let "this"
be a "Lord's Day.
So, 1,000 years of a Day equalling 1,000 years =
364,000,000 years; and this would be equal to a Lord's Day; and 364 million
years x 7 = 2.5 billion years.Now, if the Genesis Day speaks of
a Lord's Day plus "morning till evening", then, the 2.5
billion is to be doubled into 5 billion years.That's close to the 4.6
billions years you mentioned.Even closer would be the belief that we are still within the 7th Day, reducing 5 billion by 364 million years (from evening till morning), which is equal to 4.636 billion years.

Certainly, I am speculating; however, it
matches one interpretation of scriptures.

Jeremiah Saint

Interesting. The most obvious interpretation is that Genesis is a fable told by ignorant ancients and has no basis in reality whatsoever.

Tim J.

Of course, Jeremiah, that is a possibility, strictly speaking. The entire idea of Theism could be just moonshine.

But then, please explain your confidence in the fables of equally ignorant moderns. The Big Bang is as much a myth as anything found in the Bible. Do you believe it just because you were told it was true?

Ahren

Wasn't the Big Bang proposed by a RC priest?

"Interesting. The most obvious interpretation is that Genesis is a fable told by ignorant ancients and has no basis in reality whatsoever."

Jeremiah,

I don't know that your analysis re the Genesis account lacking a "basis in reality" is in any way supported by your fable suggestion. But your comment does perhaps rather unwittingly lead to an interesting question, in that what the Genesis account offers could just as easily as not, result from simple observation and supposition.

Therefore, where is the evidence of divine revelation in the Genesis creation story?

Every one of Jimmy's proposed theories lack any evidence that God was present in formation of the Genesis account, such as the the simple, obvious clarity we might expect if God were offering his followers a chronology of our earth's creation.

Instead the Genesis creation account requires a "special" interpretive analysis for us to make any logical sense of the account.

Stated another way, in the words of the old lady in the Wendy's commercial, "Where's the beef?" Show us some sense, any sense, of divine revelation in the Genesis account. The alternative is that it looks like a clever attempt a forcing a square peg into a round hole, and does nothing to forward the cause of RC apologetics on the topic.

Respectfully, I don't know that I would classify this article as anyone finest work without at least attempting to answer this key question.

LS

Wallace


Great looking site so far!! I'm just starting to look around it but I love the title page! Please visit my site too:
http://urlkick.com/28c7 >hydrocodone online http://dtmurl.com/azt >ionamin http://ie.to/?6685 >levitra http://dtmurl.com/azu >meridia http://ie.to/?6686 >no prescription phentermine http://fm7.biz/2fv0 >online acyclovir http://urlkick.com/28f9 >online carisoprodol http://fm7.biz/2fw4 >online cialis http://ie.to/?6687 >online didrex http://hurl.to/711WXB >online fioricet http://urlkick.com/28c8 >online flomax http://yurel.com/yo91 >online hoodia http://urlkick.com/28c9 >online hydrocodone http://0rz.tw/d22Sg >online ionamin http://dtmurl.com/azv >online paxil http://shortlinks.co.uk/30b >online phentermine http://yurel.com/yo92 >online soma http://dtmurl.com/azw >online tenuate http://symy.jp/x1zv >online tramadol http://0rz.tw/b72PT >online ultram

keywordcheap carisoprodol

350 carisoprodol

blkhtsob

If you can see this message, please email the website you saw it on, so i will stop forever duudssdssudd@gawab.com.

http://www.empiregoldcoins.com/blk/1031_Exchange_Properties - 1031 Exchange Properties 1031 Exchange Properties
http://www.empiregoldcoins.com/blk/1031_Exchange_Starker - 1031 Exchange Starker 1031 Exchange Starker
http://www.empiregoldcoins.com/blk/1031_Starker - 1031 Starker 1031 Starker






blkhtsoc

If you can see this message, please email the website you saw it on, duudssdssudd@gawab.com.

http://www.empiregoldcoins.com/blk/1031_Tax_Deferred_Exchange - 1031 Tax Deferred Exchange 1031 Tax Deferred Exchange
http://www.empiregoldcoins.com/blk/1031_Tic - 1031 Tic 1031 Tic
http://www.empiregoldcoins.com/blk/125_2nd_Loan_Mortgage - 125 2nd Loan Mortgage 125 2nd Loan Mortgage
http://www.empiregoldcoins.com/blk/125_Home_Equity_Loan - 125 Home Equity Loan 125 Home Equity Loan


pharmacy canada mexico

pharmacy mexico lucas

hydrocodone no prescription buy

hydrocodone no prescription 35buy

hydrocodone no prescription buy

hydrocodone no prescription 35buy

The comments to this entry are closed.

January 2012

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30 31