The Origin of Man

[littlebillie]

DeMann "It is considered to be one of the finest examples of poetry in the Aramaic/Chaldee language, and from a gramattical stand point, it is."

 

Once again, there is the suggestion that you read Aramaic and have done your own readings and translations of the original texts.

 

Still, it's only a suggestion - can you confirm this? Do you read Aramic, as you've advised others to learn, and have your read the original texts as you advise others to read?

 

I think if the answers are yes, then both sides probably have a BUNCH of questions they'd like to put ot you! :-)

 

Thanks!

[DeMann]

Dung beetles are interesting and so are the theological ideas that the Egyptians had about them. Their concepts, however, have no scientific validity

 

I agree- except that they did not differ Science from religion; they commonly believed that praying to a dung beetle would change the weather and such. A very obvious mix of science and religion. Since you like to speak of not mixing the two.

 

Even granting the Book of Job an age on the old side, say 700 BC, that can in no way compare with stella from say the first dynasty in Egypt to around 3000 BC.

 

ok. Lesson time. The first literature did not show in Asia until about 2400 to 2800 b.c. that is about the time the old kingdom of Egypt showed up (2800 to 2250 bc.) commonly known as Dynasties IV to VI. This is the time in which their religious texts first begin showing up. It is also when the pyramids begin showing up. Their famous literature (classical if you will) showed up in the XII (that is the twelfth for OGE and other slow ones who cannot follow me ((nothing personal OGE- I like you)) ) dynasty which ran from 2000 until 1780 B.C. While this time is obviously before Abraham, I do think that I said that the book of Job is thought by some to predate Abraham. If I am correct, this would indeed predate Abraham. It is well within the realm of possibility that Job was originally written 2400 years BC. Since no known king/country/state is mentioned, the text does not rule this out.

 

Once again, there is the suggestion that you read Aramaic and have done your own readings and translations of the original texts.

 

yes, is school I did learn to read it. But it has been many years, and I am very rusty. However, I can still struggle with it, and do have access to an authority on the language should my textbooks not give me the clarity on the subject at hand.

 

think if the answers are yes, then both sides probably have a BUNCH of questions they'd like to put ot you! :-)

 

Is it worth me dealing with your questions? I do not know. You have not entertained one thing I have said to date. I can only see this leading to more debate. While you and I will not change our ideals and beliefs, I can only hope to shape the ideas of those who read this thread and do not have concrete beliefs. It would be fun to chase these so very many rabbits, but time is not a factor of which I have much of.

 

 

 

 

[firstpusk]

"I agree- except that they did not differ Science from religion; they commonly believed that praying to a dung beetle would change the weather and such. A very obvious mix of science and religion. Since you like to speak of not mixing the two."

 

And how is that relevent? Because I note that they were able to prove the world was round thousands of years before you thought science knew, I must now believe in praying to dung beetles? You claimed that science thought that the world was flat until 1492. I showed you did not know what you were talking about.

 

"ok. Lesson time."

 

Please, don't flatter yourself. Your dates are based on your theology and not on any solid evidence. I am well aware of the fundamentalist approach to Biblical texts. I don't buy the methods or the reasoning. I think the 700 BC date is pretty generous. You don't agree, fine that is just something else on which we don't see eye to eye. I indicated that in Egypt alone there were written text we had that were older. You want to talk about the literary quality of Egyptian texts and date them later. That's okay, move the goalposts. They still are older than the date I have for Job.

[littlebillie]

"Is it worth me dealing with your questions? I do not know." Are my questions worth your time? That's pretty close to insulting, is that your real intent?

 

"You have not entertained one thing I have said to date." Well, since your original question was posed in a fact-finding manner, I wasn't aware that in fact it was an invitation to have my mind changed! Ummm - have YOU entertained one thing that I have said? Not sure if that's any more germane than your comment, tho'...

 

"I can only see this leading to more debate." Well, duhhh! (TOV - humorous). What were you expecting posting a question like that?

 

 

OK, let's get down to some linguistic questions. In Genesis, prior to its Roman- and Anglic- izations, way bacj when, there are scholars who point out that the noun used in reference to any deity was elohim, the plural - gods - and not the singular form. Comments?

 

The word yom - I read - can be used to refer to a 12 hour period, a 24 hour period, and a period of vast, indeterminate length. Comments?

 

There are those who say the passage in Leviticus prohibiting a man lying with a man as with a woman, actually referred, in the original texts, to a male temple prostitute, and that there are NO injunctions against Lesbians. Comments?

 

 

Don't know if these meets your criteria for response...

[packsaddle]

DeMann,

I found a couple of quotes that may satisfy part of your original question.

From a site on Hinduism:

"Hinduism believes in the concept of evolution of life on earth. Although it is not the same as the one known to modern science, in many ways and in a very fundamental sense, it is not much different from the latter."

From a site on Buddhism:

"Buddhist philosophy is evolutionary and thus agrees with the scientists rather than the theologians. Buddha taught that all things are impermanent, constantly arising, becoming, changing and fading . Buddhist philosophers consequently rejected the Platonic idea of production from 'ideal forms' as being the fallacy of 'production from inherently existent other'. According to most schools of Buddhism there is nothing whatsoever that is inherently or independently existent..

 

The two main creationist objections to evolution are:

1 Disagreement with Genesis

2 Blurring of the theological distinction between human and animal

 

Neither of these pose any threat to Buddhist philosophy. The first objection is based on the need to maintain the truth of a particular creation story in order to preserve the underlying basis for all Biblical truth. This is not a worry to Buddhists because there is no corresponding Buddhist creation myth, and Buddhist philosophers have always accepted that the universe is many hundreds of millions of years old."

 

The Catholic Church is not in disagreement with science on this either:

"Message ON EVOLUTION to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences

by HIS HOLINESS POPE JOHN PAUL II

With great pleasure I address cordial greetings to you, Mr. President, and to all of you who constitute the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, on the occasion of your plenary assembly. I offer my best wishes in particular to the new academicians, who have come to take part in your work for the first time. I would also like to remember the academicians who died during the past year, whom I commend to the Lord of life.

1. In celebrating the 60th anniversary of the Academy's refoundation, I would like to recall the intentions of my predecessor Pius XI, who wished to surround himself with a select group of scholars, relying on them to inform the Holy See in complete freedom about developments in scientific research, and thereby to assist him in his reflections.

He asked those whom he called the Church's Senatus scientificus to serve the truth. I again extend this same invitation to you today, certain that we will all be able to profit from the fruitfulness of a trustful dialogue between the Church and science (cf. Address to the Academy of Sciences, n. 1, 28 October 1986: L'Osservatore Romano English edition, 24 November 1986, p. 22).

Science at the Dawn of the Third Millennium

2. I am pleased with the first theme you have chosen, that of the origins of life and evolution, an essential subject which deeply interests the Church, since Revelation, for its part, contains teaching concerning the nature and origins of man. How do the conclusions reached by the various scientific disciplines coincide with those contained in the message of Revelation? And if, at first sight, there are apparent contradictions, in what direction do we look for their solution? We know, in fact, that truth cannot contradict truth (cf. Leo XIII, Encyclical Providentissimus Deus). Moreover, to shed greater light on historical truth, your research on the Church's relations with science between the 16th and 18th centuries is of great importance.

During this plenary session, you are undertaking a "reflection on science at the dawn of the third millennium", starting with the identification of the principal problems created by the sciences and which affect humanity's future. With this step you point the way to solutions which will be beneficial to the whole human community. In the domain of inanimate and animate nature, the evolution of science and its applications gives rise to new questions. The better the Church's knowledge is of their essential aspects, the more she will understand their impact. Consequently, in accordance with her specific mission she will be able to offer criteria for discerning the moral conduct required of all human beings in view of their integral salvation.

3. Before offering you several reflections that more specifically concern the subject of the origin of life and its evolution, I would like to remind you that the Magisterium of the Church has already made pronouncements on these matters within the framework of her own competence. I will cite here two interventions.

In his Encyclical Humani generis (1950), my predecessor Pius XII had already stated that there was no opposition between evolution and the doctrine of the faith about man and his vocation, on condition that one did not lose sight of several indisputable points (cf. AAS 42 [1950], pp. 575-576).

For my part, when I received those taking part in your Academy's plenary assembly on 31 October 1992, I had the opportunity, with regard to Galileo, to draw attention to the need of a rigorous hermeneutic for the correct interpretation of the inspired word. It is necessary to determine the proper sense of Scripture, while avoiding any unwarranted interpretations that make it say what it does not intend to say. In order to delineate the field of their own study, the exegete and the theologian must keep informed about the results achieved by the natural sciences (cf. AAS 85 [1993], pp. 764-772; Address to the Pontifical Biblical Commission, 23 April 1993, announcing the document on The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church: AAS 86 [1994], pp. 232-243).

Evolution and the Church's Magisterium

4. Taking into account the state of scientific research at the time as well as of the requirements of theology, the Encyclical Humani generis considered the doctrine of "evolutionism" a serious hypothesis, worthy of investigation and in-depth study equal to that of the opposing hypothesis. Pius XII added two methodological conditions: that this opinion should not be adopted as though it were a certain, proven doctrine and as though one could totally prescind from Revelation with regard to the questions it raises. He also spelled out the condition on which this opinion would be compatible with the Christian faith, a point to which I will return.

Today, almost half a century after the publication of the Encyclical, new knowledge has led to the recognition of more than one hypothesis in the theory of evolution. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favour of this theory.

What is the significance of such a theory? To address this question is to enter the field of epistemology. A theory is a metascientific elaboration, distinct from the results of observation but consistent with them. By means of it a series of independent data and facts can be related and interpreted in a unified explanation. A theory's validity depends on whether or not it can be verified; it is constantly tested against the facts; wherever it can no longer explain the latter, it shows its limitations and unsuitability. It must then be rethought.

Furthermore, while the formulation of a theory like that of evolution complies with the need for consistency with the observed data, it borrows certain notions from natural philosophy.

And to tell the truth, rather than the theory of evolution, we should speak of several theories of evolution. On the one hand, this plurality has to do with the different explanations advanced for the mechanism of evolution, an on the other, with the various philosophies on which it is based. Hence the existence of materialist, reductionist and spiritualist interpretations. What is to be decided here is the true role of philosophy and, beyond it, of theology.

5. The Church's Magisterium is directly concerned with the question of evolution, for it involves the conception of man: Revelation teaches us that he was created in the image and likeness of God (cf. Gn 1:27-29). The conciliar Constitution Gaudium et spes has magnificently explained this doctrine, which is pivotal to Christian thought. It recalled that man is "the only creature on earth that God has wanted for its own sake" (n. 24). In other terms, the human individual cannot be subordinated as a pure means or a pure instrument, either to the species or to society; he has value per se. He is a person. With his intellect and his will, he is capable of forming a relationship of communion, solidarity and self-giving with his peers. St. Thomas observes that man's likeness to God resides especially in his speculative intellect, for his relationship with the object of his knowledge resembles God's relationship with what he has created (Summa Theologica, I-II, q. 3, a. 5, ad 1). But even more, man is called to enter into a relationship of knowledge and love with God himself, a relationship which will find its complete fulfilment beyond time, in eternity. All the depth and grandeur of this vocation are revealed to us in the mystery of the risen Christ (cf. Gaudium et spes, n. 22). It is by virtue of his spiritual soul that the whole person possesses such a dignity even in his body. Pius XII stressed this essential point: if the human body takes its origin from pre-existent living matter, the spiritual soul is immediately created by God ("animas enim a Deo immediate creari catholica fides nos retinere iubet"; Encyclical Humani generis, AAS 42 [1950], p. 575).

Consequently, theories of evolution which, in accordance with the philosophies inspiring them, consider the mind as emerging from the forces of living matter, or as a mere epiphenomenon of this matter, are incompatible with the truth about man. Nor are they able to ground the dignity of the person.

6. With man, then, we find ourselves in the presence of an ontological difference, an ontological leap, one could say. However, does not the posing of such ontological discontinuity run counter to that physical continuity which seems to be the main thread of research into evolution in the field of physics and chemistry? Consideration of the method used in the various branches of knowledge makes it possible to reconcile two points of view which would seem irreconcilable. The sciences of observation describe and measure the multiple manifestations of life with increasing precision and correlate them with the time line. The moment of transition to the spiritual cannot be the object of this kind of observation, which nevertheless can discover at the experimental level a series of very valuable signs indicating what is specific to the human being. But the experience of metaphysical knowledge, of self-awareness and self-reflection, of moral conscience, freedom, or again, of aesthetic and religious experience, falls within the competence of philosophical analysis and reflection, while theology brings out its ultimate meaning according to the Creator's plans.

We Are Called to Enter Eternal Life

7. In conclusion, I would like to call to mind a Gospel truth which can shed a higher light on the horizon of your research into the origins and unfolding of living matter. The Bible in fact bears an extraordinary message of life. It gives us a wise vision of life inasmuch as it describes the loftiest forms of existence. This vision guided me in the Encyclical which I dedicated to respect for human life, and which I called precisely Evangelium vitae.

It is significant that in St. John's Gospel life refers to the divine light which Christ communicates to us. We are called to enter into eternal life, that is to say, into the eternity of divine beatitude.

To warn us against the serious temptations threatening us, our Lord quotes the great saying of Deuteronomy: "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God" (Dt 8:3; cf. Mt 4:4).

Even more, "life" is one of the most beautiful titles which the Bible attributes to God. He is the living God.

I cordially invoke an abundance of divine blessings upon you and upon all who are close to you.

Joannes Paulus II

October 23, 1996"

 

Finally other religious organizations recognize, in varying ways, the legitimacy of evolutionary theory:

American Jewish Congress

Center for Theology and the Natural Sciences

Central Conference of American Rabbis

Episcopal Bishop of Alabama, Pastoral Letter

Episcopal Church, General Convention

Lexington Alliance of Religious Leaders

Lutheran World Federation

Roman Catholic Church

Unitarian-Universalist Association (1977)

Unitarian Universalist Association (1982)

United Church Board for Homeland Ministries

United Methodist Church

United Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. (1982)

United Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. (1983)

 

See you in another forum. Packsaddle

 

 

 

[firstpusk]

Nice post pack...