Origin of the Earth
Where you might hear about it: Earth Science/Geology, Astronomy, even a biology course
What they'll tell you: the Big Bang story, the Nebular Hypothesis, how earth started out as a molten ball of magma, and that life started out as a single cell in a primordial soup. This life eventually played a major role in changing earth's features and atmosphere and making it habitable for modern life forms.
What to remember:
i. The Big Bang is logically impossible. You cannot get something from nothing.
ii. Yes, God could have used the Big Bang, but why tell us the whole creation week account thing if He did? And after all, Jesus did say people were around "at the beginning of creation" (Mark 10:6) not "long, long after the beginning of creation."
iii. The Nebular Hypothesis has some problems as well, not the least of which is that most other solar systems have gaseous planets in the inner orbits and small, rocky planets in the outer orbits, and the same theory can't really explain different distributions of densities and compositions. The Nebular Hypothesis says that the planets coalesced from spinning debris around the sun. That should result in consistent patterns of planets: big ones near the sun, small ones out (or vice versa); dense ones near the sun, lighter ones farther out (or vice versa) - in short, there should be one pattern of planets being ordered if they all formed from the Nebular Hypothesis. The diversity of planet systems speaks against it.
iv. The origin of life from non-life is something called abiogenesis. It's biologically impossible and has never been observed in a laboratory. The Miller-Urey experiment they love to tell you about did not create life (it created a few chemicals good for life and a few toxic to it) and required conditions that are nothing like what the early earth's environment were supposed to be like.
Where you might hear about it: Biology, Earth Science/Geology, Anthropology, Psychology, and maybe a little in Philosophy
What they'll tell you: all living things evolved from one original cell. Natural selection and mutations built up over millions of years to diversify into algae, fungi, simple animal phyla and later, the land plants and advanced chordate animals. The fossil record proves evolution by showing the gradual transition from simple organisms into more advanced ones over the past 3.8 billion years.
What to remember:
i. Natural selection and mutations do occur. Speciation occurs. The Galapagos Island Finches really did diversify into various species from one original finch type. These examples of observational science, however, do not mean that bacteria could evolve into baleen whales. They mean that within any particular type, a great deal of diversity and speciation can occur.
ii. Natural selection selects from information that is already available in the genome. It can emphasize traits, it can weed bad traits out of the gene pool, but it cannot add new information.
iii. Mutations are responsible for genetic anomalies, inherited diseases, and the general decay of living things over time. Cave fish becoming blind by mutations may be beneficial in the moment, but overall the fish decayed over time because they lost their incredibly complicated eye structures. So mutations can lead to features that are beneficial, but only beneficial in extremely specialized environments. Overall, and outside of those specialties, they are negative.
iv. Many living systems and structures are what we call irreducibly complex. For example, the biochemical systems and reactions involved in mitochondria, DNA replication, blood clotting, and other workings in and among cells. There are so many parts to make these systems work, that you can't take a single piece away without ruining the whole system. Such structures cannot evolve gradually, step-by-step, over millions of years.
v. The Theory of Evolution cannot explain the origins of sex. Not only do you need two complex and distinct reproductive systems, but you need these two wholly different systems to show up - at the same time - randomly - and somehow be exact and perfect complements of each other. Sexual reproduction is a pretty major driving force of change and diversity in evolutionary theory (we could not have the diversity and robusticity of species today if there was only asexual reproduction), so the fact that evolutionary theory cannot explain this is pretty much a death blow.
vi. The fossil record is full of missing links. The few "transitional" fossils found either have one or two special features whose importance has been blown out of proportion (like A. sediba), or they have been unique but totally non-transitional (like the platypus or coelacanth), or they have been outright fraudulent (Piltdown Man).
vii. Fossils in the fossil record do not come with dates attached to them. You have many fossils out-of-sequence (birds preexisting Archaeopteryx), and many of the dating methods used on the fossils, and the rocks they are found in, contradict each other and thus cannot be relied upon.
viii. Change occurs within types of living things (types, aka baramins or families, include: Dogs & Wolves. The rose family. Finches. Etc.). However, types cannot evolve into other types (dinosaurs into birds, or wolves into whales, or seaweeds into ferns).
The Age of the Earth
Where you might hear about it: Earth Science/Geology, Astronomy, Biology, and just about any other science class or other class with material even remotely science-related.
What they'll tell you: The earth is 4.8 billion years old. Astronomy proves this. Geology proves this. The evidence for several successive ice ages proves this. The fact that all living things evolved from one cell proves this.
What to remember:
i. The sun is gradually getting brighter. That doesn't really affect us, and it hasn't for all of human history. 3.8 billion years ago, however, when life was just getting started, it would have been so much dimmer that life would have had a very hard time getting started. We call this the Faint Sun Paradox.
ii. The moon is gradually spiraling away from us. It is supposed to be the same age as the earth, but in 4.8 billion years it should be much farther away from us than it is now.
iii. Radiometric dating can be done with multiple radioactive isotopes. Experiments have shown that using different isotopes to date the same rock can lead to such vastly different ages as a couple million years old to a couple billion years old. Such wild contradictions must mean that radiometric dating has some problems and cannot be used to "prove" an old earth.
iv. C-14 dating can only date things up to 100,000 years old (it's gone after that many years), but it has been found in objects - fossils, coals, diamonds - that are supposed to be hundreds of millions or even billions of years old.
v. Fossils of trees were C-14 dated to be a couple thousand years old, but other radioisotopes were used to date the rocks the tree fossils were found in. The rocks were dated as millions of years old. Again, this is a serious contradiction epitomizing the problems with radiometric dating.
vi. Geologic structures like canyons, rock layers, etc. have been observed to form at a rapid pace in geologic catastrophes. This means that you don't necessarily need millions of years to get the Grand Canyon or Arches National Park. Geological formations do not require an old earth.
vii. Instead of there being several ice ages, there was probably only one. Secular theories cannot explain how an ice age could even get started (how do you evaporate a ton of water and then cool it into snow? You need hot temperatures AND cool temperatures simultaneously, and that's really hard to explain) but creation theories explain it nicely. There was one ice age after the Great Flood and you do not need millions of years to get one.
viii. Evolution requires an old earth because it is easier to believe that pond scum and turn into a human being if you give the pond scum a couple billion years to accomplish such a feat. Without an old earth, the Theory of Evolution is ridiculous, and that is why scientists grasp at straws (and contradictory dating methods) to believe in one.
Where you might hear about it: Anthropology, Psychology, Biology
What they'll tell you: Humans diverged from the Great Apes from a common ancestor about two million years ago. Transitional forms like Lucy and the Neanderthals show the transition from apes to bipedal, walking ape-like hominids to larger-brained hominids to people. Humans today come from a group of such hominids in Africa (or possibly Asia).
What to remember:
i. Lucy is an ape. Her hips are comparable to apes who walk upright some of the time, not all of the time. She was not bipedal.
ii. Neanderthals and the Denisovans were people. They buried their dead (complete with scattered flowers), they made tools, they performed dental operations on each other, they even made mathematically precise flute-like musical instruments. They were human in every possible way. And, if they were around today, they'd be slamming the racists who call them ape-men.
iii. The notion that chimps and humans share 98\% of their DNA is a notion based on the outdated and refuted idea of "junk DNA." If you compare the total human genome to the total chimp genome - without ignoring the "junk DNA" that was previously ignored in each - you will find that it's closer to 80\% or even less of a shared genome. Furthermore, a shared genome is not proof of a common ancestor. It's proof that living things share much of the same biochemistry (we all have mitochondria, and DNA, and proteins, and we read and express much of DNA the same way*). Similarities in DNA prove that living things live off of a common language, and that's as much evidence of a common designer as it is for a common ancestor (if not more so).
For More Information
Evolution Exposed: Biology and Evolution Exposed: Earth Science, both by Roger Patterson, are excellent resources that expose the holes in evolutionary, origin of the universe, and age of the earth theories. While aimed at high school students (the books quote liberally from high school science textbooks), they go in more than enough detail to be useful field guides for worldviews and inconsistencies in your college classes.
*So, cool fact. You know those glow-in-the-dark GloFish you see in pet stores? They glow because scientists took genes for bioluminescence out of jellyfish genomes and spliced them into the fishes' genomes. Jellies (Cnidarians) and fish (Chordates) are supposed to be separated by over 500 million years of evolution, and yet they read this gene and express this gene in the exact same way.
How is that even possible? ;)
;) sorry, double post
;) sorry, double post
Sat, 09/16/2017 - 02:57
First off: This was very
First off: This was very interesting! It's always nice to hear of college students who won't let go of what they believe, even when thrown under the bus, insulted, and even downright persecuted. God bless you for writing these!
Secondly: My family is tightly knit and devoutly Catholic Christian. We know that God created the Universe and is still involved in showing us even more amazing things He created in history every day. My mom has told me in our endless talks about my views on the theories of evolution and the Big Bang Theory: 'If it's ever proven to be true, then it doesn't contradict God. No science can ever contradict God. If evolution is proven to be true, then so be it. God used evolution to create humanity in His image'. Basically, if God proves it true, I won't argue. I won't have argued against his way of doing things, because He understands his own creation infinitely better than I do.
I don't argue for atheist scientists 'using' science to disprove God, but that doesn't mean I'm not open to the theory being proven to be true. That would simply mean God used the Big Bang to put the universe into order. That solves the 'nothing from nothing' problem right there.
When I say that evolution could possibly be true, I don't mean humans evolved from bacteria and reptiles. While a species can change, a whole jump from Protista to Animalia makes absolutely no sense.
Another point to make is that the Big Bang Theory was created by a Catholic priest (Father Georges LeMaitre) and he cited his theory on the prospect (our teaching) of the Unmoved Mover. It's the atheists who made it ridiculous-sounding. There are countless Catholic scientists and doctors throughout history whose theories and views have been perverted by the world for their own selfish views.
My next point is not to sound unfaithful to Christianity at ALL, it is a musing from my learning my faith with the authority the Roman Catholic Church has: the Bible isn't just history. Job was a story. It's not all just stories, either. Jesus' ministry was historical. In Catholicism, we have the Catechism and Tradition that tells us that not all of the Old Testament is to be taken as a history book. I have Protestant friends who view the Bible as completely historical, which opens many respectful debates with them and my fellow Catholic friends.
Genesis is talking about creation and the fall of humanity. It happened. There's no denying that the world was created by God and we humans sinned against our Divine and Perfect Creator. But that doesn't necessarily mean that it was all done in seven days and that Adam and Eve ate the fruit from the Tree of Good and Evil. Now, if that is historical, I haven't blatantly doubted it. Nor have I debunked and refused anything else.
I am not attempting to force views on anyone with this. I have been taught to leave theories (except for really stupid ones) to be open. God works in mysterious ways. We can't say exactly how He did anything. We are called to live faithfully to each other and to love Him above all things, and that's enough for me until I meet Him.
This post is a million miles long...
God Bless, Hannah!
From the comfort of your own homes!
Sat, 09/16/2017 - 17:57
In reply to First off: This was very by Madalyn Clare
Libby – Thank you so much!
Libby – Thank you so much! That last fact is one of my favorites too. It makes me want to get some pet GloFish. Then I remember that I have four cats so I probably shouldn’t. :P
Madalyn – Ooh, a long comment. Those are my favorites. :)
So let me start by saying you’re really good at this! You express your beliefs in an informative, non-confrontational way, and you never came off like you were forcing your views or anything. I’m always interested to hear what other people think about this subject so thank you for your response!
You mention if evolution, or if the big bang, were ever proven true. This is kind of a fine point but in science, you can’t really “prove” anything; you can only confirm a theory (making it more likely) or disprove it altogether. The only reason why thermodynamics and gravity are considered scientific laws is because they’ve been around so long and have never been disproved. That doesn’t make them facts, however; they are still theories. Just theories that everyone, at this point, takes for granted. Furthermore evolution and the big bang can never really be compared to thermodynamics and gravity because they relate to the past. They are not observational sciences (like gravity), so that makes them more of a worldview issue than a scientific issue.
There are more problems with the Big Bang than “nothing from nothing,” and I’ve written on a few of them before. I’ve also written on why I think the Genesis account should be taken literally. Since you’ve already talked with Protestants who take it as historical, I’m sure you’ve heard many of my reasons before. I just wanted to say that of course there’s more than just history in the OT, however, there is nothing in the Genesis creation account to suggest it is poetry or prophecy or parable. Finally, you write “We can’t say exactly how He did everything.” If you mean “how” in a functional sense, like “what exactly was the process by which Jesus turned water into wine,” then sure, we don’t know how God created. But in the sense of what He did, well, I would argue we can, and do, know how He created. That’s because He told us in His Word.
I just have a few questions to consider on the topic:
1. Why would God use evolution, an actually rather brutal process of survival of the fittest, random deaths, and merciless weeding out of the sick and weak, to create the universe – especially before Adam and Eve’s sin brought death and suffering into the world?
2. Do you consider Adam and Eve to be literal people who lived approximately 6,000 years ago (their genealogies lead straight to Jesus, so that’s kind of a non-negotiable* fact), and if so, how do you explain the human deaths (Neanderthals, Denisovans, etc.) before that date?
3. And this one’s more philosophical than fact-based, but If God used the big bang and evolution, why didn’t He describe it more obviously, or at least use more figurative speech in Genesis 1-2? (there are plenty of other religions, like Hinduism, in which evolution actually fits quite nicely into their creation accounts because of the highly figurative language and descriptions of natural progression.)
Anyway, thank you so much for reading, for your long and detailed comment, and for your encouragement on standing strong in the faith! Blessings to you, and yes - let us continue to live faithfully and loving God first in our lives. :)
*I just wanted to clarify that by “non-negotiable” here I don’t mean you need to believe that Adam and Eve were literal people to be Christian. I simply mean that their historicity is difficult, if not impossible, to deny based on this fact and other theological truths. So people can be Christian and deny their historicity, but they’re almost certainly wrong. :P
Sun, 09/17/2017 - 03:00
In reply to Libby – Thank you so much! by Hannah D.
Oh yay I love
Oh yay I love discussions!
Hannah, your viewpoints are very learned and I'm always both impressed and learning something when you write essays and comments. I took some time after reading your comment to talk with my family about what they thought of the subject, as well as my Bible and a good dose of Catechism. Granted, I'm more versed in the Catechism and New Testament than the Old, so I will try my best at replying to your questions, though I'm fairly sure this is your territory.
I don't personally believe in macro-evolution, as in we are descended from bacteria, reptiles, and apes. I doubt it happened. But, as I will explain, there might be a lead-up to the Fall of Humanity in Genesis, and a form of evolution may be just that.
2. Adam and Eve
While the First Parents (Adam and Eve) makes sense to a point, this leaves me with a question: we understand now that marriage into the family (marrying your first cousin, or even sibling) is dangerous. Growing populations in the beginning times of human presence on Earth would have to marry into their own families, and their children would be susceptible to diseases such as hemophilia (deficiency of platelets in the blood). In a growing area, diseases like that can be fatal. How would we have survived to this day and age if we, as a people, were subject to such diseases? And more importantly, since Adam and Eve only bore sons and no daughters, how did the sons have children? It is said in the Bible that there were more people around (Cain marries an Egyptian princess), so perhaps God created more people than just Adam and Eve at the time.
So this opens up another question: why would God create more people made in His image but have them separated by race and religion, and have them separated from Him by sin? Did He make them with sin? How could He make others imperfect if He is completely perfect? As said in the Bible, after Cain killed Abel, it is said he feared 'others' would kill him. God put a mark on his forehead so 'others' would set him apart. The Bible says, and I do not recite word for word, "God said: 'If Cain is killed, I will take seven lives in reparation.' Where are these "others" coming from? Perhaps this could back up the prospect of parable in the creation story.
3. The Big Bang
Let's be reminded that God didn't directly write the Bible. The New Testament is written by witnesses of Jesus' life such as Saint John the Evangelist and divinely inspired writers such as Saint Paul and Saint Luke. But since we're talking about the Old Testament, we'll stick with that. As you say, "But in the sense of what He did, well, I would argue we can, and do, know how He created. That’s because He told us in His Word.", I would argue that God didn't directly tell anyone how He did it. I was discussing your comment with my grandmother and my sister, and my grandmother says, and I agree with her, "The Hebrews did tell stories to their children, and their children told them, to remind them to stay faithful to God. The Genesis story could very well be parable, but that doesn't take away the fact that we're all created in the image and likeness of God." Also, my sister said, "No one was around when God created the world. After Adam and Eve lost their privilege of walking and speaking with Him, I doubt they knew - or if they did, fathomed - how He did what." I doubt Adam and Eve could have fathomed what God had done to create the world, much less articulate it to their legacies.
Again, this theory was created by a devout Catholic priest, Father Georges LeMaitre, in wondering how God may have created the world. It is only a theory, but scientists say that, as this universe seems to be slowly expanding by records of stars moving away from each other and matter expanding in space, that this may be a supported claim. Doesn't mean it's true.
Another point I'd wish to make is that the Bible is not a science book. It's a record of history and parables that was pieced together by the faithful. It is of history and parable to read for the sake of learning our faith from our ancestors, who were inspired by God to write what they wrote.
Finally, I'd like to recommend to you a book series that may help in learning a bit more about my argument. The first book is called "The Truth is Out There". It's written by a Catholic monk and is a comic-book style delving into the topics of philosophy, history, religion, and finding God. It's a fun read with fun pictures and characters but definitely made for the sake of teaching the deep subjects with the complicated answers.
P.S. That fact on the GloFish is so cool! Now I want one ;)
From the comfort of your own homes!
Mon, 09/18/2017 - 03:35
In reply to Oh yay I love by Madalyn Clare
Hi Madalyn!Thanks so much
Thanks so much for your response, and kindness! I love discussions too. :) I’ve actually written on a couple of these issues before; I’d add links to my own essays, but it’d probably be more helpful for me to point you to AnswersinGenesis.org or ICR.org since they’re better at explaining things than I am. :P Also, a lot of your views you discussed sound to me a lot like Progressive Creation, would you agree or have you researched that view? You can find critiques of it at the above two websites; Hugh Ross at Reasons.org would have defenses of it. All three include details on what the theory is and how it works. I of course saw your book recommendation and will check that out when I can, but I’m hoping this is a way that I can gain a little insight into your POV for now. My view, of course, is Young Earth Creation, which is elaborated on and defended at Answers in Genesis and ICR (and, presumably, critiqued at Reasons to Believe).
Anyway let’s continue this discussion. I’d like to start by quoting Genesis 5:4, which says: “After Seth was born, Adam lived 800 years and had other sons and daughters.”
So nowadays you marry your relative and chaos shows up in the kids. That’s because there are a lot of mutations in our DNA, and there are more and more mutations showing up in each new generation (whether you marry your cousin or not). If you were to assume that this mutation increase is constant, and extrapolate backwards, you would find that the first person to have a perfect genome lived approximately 6,000 years ago. So I know this is weird but Cain likely married his sister. The genetic diseases wouldn’t have been a problem then because there hadn’t been enough time for the human genome to acquire all the mutations we see today. Incidentally, this is another reason why the theory of evolution doesn’t work – mutations lead to genetic diseases and decay, not advances in living things!
You argued that God made “others” in addition to Adam and Eve. Now, these “others” are not necessary, since Adam and Eve did in fact have many other children, and the genetic problems you pointed out are resolved above. However, there are some other problems with saying God created “others” apart from Adam and Eve. If such a thing happened, then God created human beings who were already sinning and worshipping other gods. That means that God is the author of sin, and that would be a serious ethical problem for Christianity. In fact, one of the reasons why Islam fails as an ethical religion is because it teaches that Allah created people as they are today, sinful; there is no Fall of Man doctrine, so sin (and thus, death and suffering) are Allah’s fault. Christianity, however, teaches that God created the world perfectly, “very good” (Gen. 1:31). Death and suffering and evil only entered the scene after the Fall. That means that the problems in today’s world are not God’s fault; they’re the fault of our sinful human nature. For this to hold true, you need one man, Adam, through which death entered the world, and no other human populations that were already sinning independently.
Other reasons to believe that we are all descendants of Adam have to do with race and salvation. On salvation, it is through Adam all die; thus in Christ all can find salvation (Rom. 5:12-20, 1 Cor. 15:20-22). This also makes all of humanity one race (“race” is biologically meaningless anyway), and all capable of receiving God’s grace through Jesus. In sum, if God created “others,” the foundation for doctrines like the Fall, the origins of death & suffering, and the Gospel is taken away.
I have trouble with your assertion that God didn’t directly write the Bible. Please correct me if I’m reading you wrong here! It’s true, of course, that the Bible was recorded by men, but that doesn’t take away from the Bible’s inerrancy, or in its ability to clearly and directly reveal us information God wants us to know (Prov. 30:5, 2 Tim. 3:16-17). Also, Jesus quoted liberally from the OT, including when He was correcting false pharisaical views (Mat. 12:1-5, among many others) and resisting temptation (Mat. 4:1-11). He also quoted part of the creation account, Genesis 2:24, in Mark 10:6. Jesus is a perfect example on how to rightly divide the Word of Truth (2 Tim. 2:15), so since He relied so much on the Scriptures, since He had a high view of the OT (Jn. 17:17), we have no need to be wary of trusting them as well.
I am a bit confused – are you saying that the creation account is a record of stories Hebrews told their children? Is a book of the Bible not directly inspired by God unless it was written by someone who actually lived and spoke with Jesus? Are you saying that the OT was written by people who were somehow less inspired? You later say that the Bible was written by inspired authors, so it confuses me that you need to clarify between the authorship differences between the Old and New Testaments. I am honestly just looking for clarification here! I’m not accusing you of being unfaithful to Christianity or anything. I just would like a little more explanation on what you believe on this point.
An ancient Greek by the name of Epicurus actually came up with a very evolution-sounding philosophy on origins. The Hindu creation account (Hinduism is one of the most ancient world religions) speaks of a natural progression which sounds a lot like evolutionary theory. The Hindus could fathom it. The Greeks could fathom it. There’s no reason to believe that Adam and Eve wouldn't have been able to fathom it, or articulate it to their children.
When it comes to interpreting the creation account, there is nothing in the text that suggests it should be taken as parable. I mean, just compare Exodus 14 to Ex. 15, both discussing the Red Sea crossing. One is obviously meant to be taken literally; the other is obviously poetical. Gen. 1-2 is written nothing like Ex. 15, but mirrors the style of chapter 14. A literal interpretation of Genesis 1-2 is the most intuitive, most natural, response to a plain reading of the text. This isn’t just my opinion – Hebrew and Old Testament scholars (even ones who accept millions of years) agree that the author of the creation account intended to mean a literal creation week of seven consecutive 24-hour days. It’s just good hermeneutics.
I know that the Big Bang was first suggested by a Christian. I also know that the universe is expanding – and that the Bible mentions this (Isaiah 40:22). That doesn’t mean that the universe began as a tiny point that exploded, however – that conclusion actually relies on uniformitarianism, a secular principle.
I actually haven’t really been using the Bible as a science book. My essay here mostly discusses observable, testable, repeatable scientific facts and experiments (genetic limitations of evolution, contradictions in dating methods, etc.). My above response deals more with the Bible itself – the issue of whether or not you could have death before sin (especially human death), and the historicity of Adam. Both of these are not scientific issues, but actually relate to the Gospel (again, Rom. 5:12-20, 1 Cor. 15:20-22).
Again, I feel obliged to clarify that you don’t need to believe in a historical Adam and a no-death-before-sin policy in order to be a Christian. It’s just that the Gospel actually has roots in these issues: God created the world perfect and sinless, Adam was a real person, death & suffering entered the world through his rebellion, we all inherit sin through Adam, and thus we all have the opportunity to conquer sin through Jesus – the Last Adam (1 Cor. 15:45). Because of this, our theology of creation is still a relevant subject, so it is important to flesh out and think through our beliefs in this area.
And yes, GloFish are amazing! Imagine having your own living night-light . . . just imagine the wonderfulness of it such a thing . . . :D
Also – feel free to respond to me in email! You can respond here again or by email, but I’ll probably get back to you by email, if that’s ok. It’s not a big deal, I’m just worried that someone’s going to hop on and insist that ApricotPie is a writing forum, not a debate forum! Now, my response to that is: Persuasive writing is as professional and requires as much practice/technique/skill as any other form of writing – creative, research, poetry, journalism, etc. So why shouldn’t it be allowed here?
. . . then again I tend to be a nervous type when it comes to the possibility of breaking rules :P Also, this comment is probably long enough to merit its own essay, so yeah.
Mon, 09/18/2017 - 04:11
In reply to Hi Madalyn!Thanks so much by Hannah D.
Hi, Hannah! I'm beginning to
I'm beginning to see this. Thank you for your views! My biggest problem, I guess, is that in Catholicism, we have so many other ways of learning our faith that I don't sit down with just a Bible (being without the Catechism and other things too) so I'm a little out of practice with articulating :P I'll definitely email you if you show me where to go!
From the comfort of your own homes!
Mon, 09/18/2017 - 04:17
In reply to Hi, Hannah! I'm beginning to by Madalyn Clare
Hi Madalyn! Ok sounds good.
Hi Madalyn! Ok sounds good. If you go to my account page, I believe there is a tab at the top that allows you to contact me. If not let me know and I'll try to fix my settings.
Looking forward to your email! :)
Mon, 09/18/2017 - 04:59
In reply to Hi Madalyn! Ok sounds good. by Hannah D.
Hey guys! I've been reading
Hey guys! I've been reading all the comments so far and am a little confused about one thing. Actually a couple, but I'll start with one. Madalyn...you said in your first comment that Job was a story. Do you mean like a fictional story?
Mon, 09/18/2017 - 19:14
In reply to Hey guys! I've been reading by Libby
Hi, Libby! I don't know how
I don't know how you interpret the Bible, but in Catholicism, it's common to take Job and some of the creation story as parable. I don't believe Job was a real person, but I could be wrong. We (Catholics) have a history of councils and ancient discussions revolving around where we're supposed to take the Bible literally and where it's most likely a legend or a fictional story to convey a point.
Nothing's really proven against, but it's common practice to emphasize other places in the Bible, like the Gospel of John and the Epistles are emphasized in our Church. We don't have that much emphasis on Genesis.
The authority of interpretation is in the hands of the Vatican. We can, as laypeople, discuss what we 'got out of' what we read, but a good amount of our study is from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which is interpretations from bishops and the Pope.
This discussion wasn't so I could prove or disprove anything. I merely meant to include another perspective to the Bible.
Hope that helped!
From the comfort of your own homes!
Mon, 09/18/2017 - 19:49
In reply to Hi, Libby! I don't know how by Madalyn Clare
Hannah: Before I email you,
Before I email you, I'll definitely be researching more in depth the Catholic interpretations of the Old Testament. I've been told I don't debate well :P so I may not be the best defendant of my points. But if I get around to it, I'll do my best!
From the comfort of your own homes!
Mon, 09/18/2017 - 20:16
In reply to Hannah: Before I email you, by Madalyn Clare
Hi Madalyn, sounds like a
Hi Madalyn, sounds like a plan! And I think you're really good at debates. :) I feel like I've learned quite a bit about Catholic Christianity already through your comments.
Mon, 09/18/2017 - 22:42
In reply to Hi, Libby! I don't know how by Madalyn Clare
Hey, thanks! Just wanted a
Hey Madalyn, thanks! Just wanted a bit of clarification.
Your point is very interesting, and, although I don't necessarily agree with everything, I want to research more about it.
Hannah, thank you for sharing this! I am so bad at remembering things like this and so it is SO helpful to have a list of "quick facts" to summarize it all.
Thanks for reading, Kyleigh!
Thanks for reading, Kyleigh! I'm so glad you found this helpful. :)
Great stuff about what they
Great stuff about what they say and how to answer. I'm not yet in college, but my siblings are all in or have done and I've heard similar things from them.
I also liked the last fact.