Author Topic: Genesis 1-true way to read it (Read 640 times)

kamalayka · « **on:** December 04, 2009, 06:21:28 PM »

I don't know much Hebrew, but apparently Genesis 1 is a poem full of parallels.

http://ancienthebrewpoetry.typepad.com/ancient_hebrew_poetry/2007/11/a-literary-tran.html

Vladimir · « **Reply #1 on:** December 04, 2009, 09:20:41 PM »

With all due respect, sir, the Book of Genesis is not meant to be taken figuratively (at least in the creation account). I highly recommend the books available at www.chantcd.com and www.tanbooks.com about Evolution v. Creationism.

Evolution is not true, and the Popes have taught us that unless a superior theory is proven, then the idea of a literal six day creation, as was taught by all the Church Fathers, is to be believed.

kamalayka · « **Reply #2 on:** December 04, 2009, 10:19:43 PM »

kamalayka · « **Reply #3 on:** December 04, 2009, 10:20:45 PM »

"In the Beginning...."
A Catholic Understanding of the Story of Creation and the Fall

excerpts from Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (Pope Benedict XVI)

http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/p81.htm

Jamie · « **Reply #4 on:** December 05, 2009, 05:32:24 AM »

Quote from: kamalayka

"In the Beginning...."
A Catholic Understanding of the Story of Creation and the Fall

excerpts from Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (Pope Benedict XVI)

http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/p81.htm

I wonder if we ought to bear in mind that Cardinal Ratzinger was one of the proponents of the new theology. Along with Henri de Lubac, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, Hans Urs von Balthasar, Yves Congar, Karl Rahner, Hans Küng, Edward Schillebeeckx, Marie-Dominique Chenu, Louis Bouyer, Etienne Gilson, Jean Daniélou, and Jean Mouroux.

We call all of these men heretics except Ratzinger (whom we apply "Pope" to despite the fact that he wasn't pope when he wrote the words). This is like some bizarre pre-canonization: "he was not Pope then, but as he is Pope now we back-date infallibility". Cardinal Ratzinger was able to obstinately preach heresy until he became Pope - just as Kung and the others were (and did).

I would not trust a word written by any one of them. I think the same can be safely said for Cardinal Ratzinger.

That is not to say that as Pope he has not had a conversion of heart and is now strictly scholastic, but recent encyclicals and statements would suggest that he still holds to some of the tenets of new theology.

Accordingly one must be cautious (as with the previous few Popes) to ensure that all statements are considered in accord with tradition and, I believe, tradition says that a literal understanding of Genesis is to be held unless science can give a clear and logical explanation that fits with the text.

Now, having said that, modern science is not true science as it rejects the first and final cause. It is based on probabilities and not things which can be determined by reason. Science says "we observed this happening x times, therefore it is true in all cases" - this is patently wrong - empiricism can never give us absolute answers (except insofar as it says "when watching x, y happens - therefore y is true of x when watching)" which is NOT what science tells us.

We really must reject any science which is not based on the scholastic method and as there is virtually no modern science based on this method, we must wait for reason to return to science before we can consider its merits against the Biblical accounts of our history.

Jamie · « **Reply #5 on:** December 05, 2009, 05:56:51 AM »

I was just reading over Cardinal Ratzinger's booklet and taken at random here is one sentence:

"We are all one humanity, formed from God's one earth."

This is false - Cardinal Ratzinger is wrong. By saying "we are all" he is saying "man". So he is saying "man is one humanity". This is utterly false for a very obvious reason: "Man" is a concrete concept, and "humanity" is an abstract concept. Man cannot be humanity just as humanity cannot be man. Humanity is abstract - it doesn't exist as a thing in reality - whereas man does.

What the Cardinal is doing here is showing his belief in the new theology - man determines humanity - if man changes, so does the notion of humanity.

If such an obvious error can be found by picking one random comment from the whole work, should we really be recommending it as good reading?

Here is one more selection: "Indeed, to the question as to what distinguishes the human being from an animal, as to what is specifically different about human beings, the answer has to be that they are the beings that God made capable of thinking and praying."

Thinking is an act of the intellect. Animals can think - they have intellects. In fact, the thing that differentiates brute from man is one: reason. Man can reason, animals can't.

Either Cardinal Ratzinger was not educated according to Thomism (which, given his age, I find hard to believe) or he has chosen to reject it and follow a new course. One is always safe when following the Angelic Doctor - Cardinal Ratzinger is not.

Boniface · « **Reply #6 on:** December 05, 2009, 03:37:44 PM »

Boniface · « **Reply #7 on:** December 05, 2009, 03:38:44 PM »

This guy Uriel is not Catholic, and doubt he is even a self proclaimed 'christian'. He is new age and constantly posts strange interpretations of Scripture in this forum. I do not understand why he is still here. Go find a UFO new age conspiracy forum, 'uriel', and take your pothead friends roscoe and kamalkaya with you.

:stare: :stare: :stare: