nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 119:
Line 119: + + + + + + + + + +
Talk:Roman Catholicism (view source)
Revision as of 05:08, October 26, 2008
, 05:08, October 26, 2008→Catholics not as Christians?: More on the historicity of the creation account, and its basis for biblical truth.
:Although overall a very good page, the section on Galileo does not agree with either the Church's official records of the time nor Galileo's personal statements in that regard. In short, it doesn't agree with the primary evidence. --[[User:Thinker|Thinker]] 12:37, 25 October 2008 (EDT)
:Although overall a very good page, the section on Galileo does not agree with either the Church's official records of the time nor Galileo's personal statements in that regard. In short, it doesn't agree with the primary evidence. --[[User:Thinker|Thinker]] 12:37, 25 October 2008 (EDT)
::: CreationOnTheWeb's "article" is actually a paper from a peer-reviewed journal. Would you mind asking them about how the paper doesn't (according to you) reflect the historical document?
::: But the main point was that the Church was supportive of ''science'', regardless of whether they supported or suppressed ''particular scientific ideas''.
::: You don't need to accept that Scripture is ''always'' taken literally for evolution to be non-biblical, only that the creation account is to be taken literally.
::: I quoted Mark 10:5-9 as an example of the Bible relying on its history generally, not specifically on the creation account, but in fact it does do that. It is specifically referring to the creation of Adam and Eve, and the fact that Eve was made from Adam: they were originally one flesh, so in marriage they become one flesh. Another example is the week, which is based on the six days of creation and one day of rest. Should we really be working for six millions years and then a million years off work? But perhaps the most important one is that of sin and death. The whole reason that Jesus came was to save us from our sin, which began when Adam and Eve disobeyed God in the Garden of Eden. It was this sin that introduced death into the world, and Jesus showed his authority by overcoming death. But evolution proposes millions upon millions of years of death prior to the appearance of man.
::: "''...in those cases [prophecies] it relies on sections which are undoubtedly meant to be taken as historical narrative.''": Did you read [[creation week]]? It shows that the creation account is "undoubtedly meant to be taken as historical narrative".
::: "''...all that the Bible relies upon from Genesis is that it happened, not really when it happened.''": That ''what'' happened? That Eve was made from Adam's side, for example? That Adam was made from the dust of the ground, not from an ape?
::: "''(I'm not arguing here that we should cede history from Genesis,, because that is a separate argument. I want to assert only that doing so would not undermine Biblical Truth)''": It would undermine any "Biblical Truth" that relies on the creation account, and that includes the basis of sin, salvation, death, clothing, the week, sacrifice (substitutionary atonement), marriage, and so on.
::: Your comments about John 3:12 seem irrelevant. Okay, so it was drawing a distinction between the material and the spiritual. John 3:12 wouldn't have made sense without there being a distinction. If you don't believe one, you won't believe the other. If the two weren't distinct, that would make no sense.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:08, 26 October 2008 (EDT)
== Roman Catholicism ==
== Roman Catholicism ==