Creation or Evolution theories

Thanks, Jon. You have a lot of knowledge.

 

First off, I read the letter from TED, and I have to agree with the comments and not with TED and what they did. They didn't do much 'fact checking' and it is pitiful that they censored the man after the 'thousands' of documents he had on the subject from different sources. Its a fact that there is a HUGE cover up regarding the Americas and the people who have been here, including Europeans.

 

INsearch, I just came back from my Bible Study and I took up the wonderful part of Genesis with our Teacher, who is not only a humble educated man, he is Marian to the core and has a photographic memory. Its always a privilege to hear him speak. I asked him about #1 -the two camps of Sons of God and the Niphilium we were discussing, and #2 the Sarah episode where she kicks out Hagar and Ishmael. This is what I found out-

#1- The Sons of God were those men who followed God thru the linage of Adam, Noe, Abraham etc. Someone provided the EWTN reference and this is exactly what my Teacher said and Angels/Aliens/Demons did NOT mate with the women of the world to give us hybrids/lizard people/etc. The Angel theory actually is very PROTESTANT and gets thrown in with lots of theories. After having learned SO MUCH about the ASCENDANCE/DECENDANCE of Man, the FATHER/SON Paradigm, the foreshadowing of Jesus/Mary/Church/etc. in Genesis, it all makes so much MORE SENSE!

Answer by Fr. John Echert on 1/22/2006:
Genesis records a strange hybrid which resulted from sexual unions between the "daughters of men" and the “sons of God.
6:1 When men began to multiply on the face of the ground, and daughters were born to them, 6:2 the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were fair; and they took to wife such of them as they chose. 6:3 Then the LORD said, "My spirit shall not abide in man for ever, for he is flesh, but his days shall be a hundred and twenty years." 6:4 The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men, and they bore children to them. These were the mighty men that were of old, the men of renown.
While many scholars prefer to dismiss this entirely as myth which is borrowed from pagans cultures of the ancient near east, it is more appropriate to look for some truth and reality behind this mythical sounding text. Some of the Church Fathers, such as St. Augustine, Chrysostom, and Cyril of Alexandria suggested that the “sons of God” may refer to righteous descendants (men) of Seth who took descendants (women) of Cain as wives. In such a case, “sons of God” associates the men with the goodness of God whereas “daughters of men” would be intended as a contrast to this. This is typical of ancient Semitic expressions which must not be interpreted literally as we understand such constructions but in accord with the customary use of language at the time. Knowing the background of Cain as a killer and the bad blood of his descendants, it is no wonder that such unions would be regarded in a negative light, which unions led to a situation in which humanity was corrupted and unacceptable to God. On the other hand, it is said of Seth and his line that these were the first to reverence the Name of Yahweh. The word “Nephalim” literally means “fallen ones” which sense would be consistent with an interpretation that views this group as a corrupt mixture of good and bad blood. Other commentators have suggested that the “sons of God” were (fallen) angels who somehow mated with human women, but this does present metaphysical complications in light of the natures of each. For now, I find the Patristic solution the most satisfying. ©

#2 -As for Sarah, I learned SO MUCH TONIGHT!! First, when Sarah kicks Hagar out we need to realize that what Sarah and Abraham did was like having a baby out of wedlock. Then it was almost NINE years before God spoke to Abraham again. Sarah panicked and drew Abraham into her scheme, even tho God promised Abraham that he would have a son/heir. It was Abraham's fault for NOT trusting in God, and NOT being the priest/father/husband/servant he was called to be. (Very MUCH like Adam and Eve.) After God gave him what for, he again asks Abraham to go outside, even tho its daytime. He has him look up to the sky and says,"Look at the stars", and Abraham says, "I don't see them, but I know they are there..." and God say, "Trust me like that. Have FAITH IN ME." So when AT THIS MOMENT, THE COVENANT IS MADE and Sarah and Abraham make Isaac TRUSTING IN GOD, which is a true covenantal Marriage and their heir is conceived.

The paragraph we spoke about is when Sarah kicks Hagar out. When she does this she is saying, "I have a RESPONSIBILITY to the linage of the Hebrew Church to keep it together. My heir, YOUR SON, Isaac is the purity of the US (covenant) and the ONLY one who will receive heirship. SHE SITS AT THE RIGHT HAND OF THE THRONE OF HIM WHO IS TO BE THE PRIEST...! (A foreshadowing of our Lady). God did not abandon Ishmael. BUT these two boys were going to be used for completely different plans of God. "That which is going to be the light of the world (Israel) has to be protected. There can't be distractions but its in its infancy here in Genesis. The Arab people will play their part....

Ishmael means: 'Wild ass of a man'- which means a lot of chaos. That is indeed what has become of the linage of Ishmael.

Isaac means: Heir, the 'son whom you love', 'the son with the covenanted marriage'.

One of the things the teacher stressed was how all of this 'scene' was about TRUST, BARRENNESS, DECEPTION, HAVING CHILDREN OUTSIDE OF A COVENANTAL MARRIAGE, FAITH..... It speaks VOLUMES TODAY!!!

I learned tonight there is NO WAY we can decipher, interpret the scriptures on our own. Especially the OLD Testament. Because if we don't get it right, we will get it all wrong!!

 

No Jimmyiz, I was wrong. They were not angels. Angels do not sleep with people. Carmel was right and so was Marys Child.

 

Peter, I just love it when you talk...you must be European. You have so many words that have more than 5 letters in them...actually 17 letters! Ha...seriously, I don't even know if I've ever used a sentence with a word with that many letters...I understand what you say, and I appreciate your input...nuff said!

 

That is true. And you are right.

 

Yes, Enoch seems to say that. Thats how all this business with the Angels sleeping with humans or aliens sleeping with humans got started. I cannot reflect anymore on this. I already posted what I needed to say. Sorry I brought it all up, although I am better for it tonight having asked the question in the Bible Study.

I am fully aware of the theories out there regarding Niphillium, aliens, lizard people, demons, angelic children, indigo children, etc. I only can discuss angels and demons. Not willing to discuss the rest. Another thread if you please if you want to discuss this further, that way Jose and Peter and others can discuss Evolutionary theories and the Creation of Man...

 

MS7,
I do not buy conspiracy theories. We do not have any fossil records of a humanoid giant species. If there would have been some, I cannot understand why this could be a problem for anybody. On the contrary, the name of the discoverer would have been immortalized. So, no reason for conspiracy.

 

Mario,

I found an excellent article that explains the somehow artificial use made by creationists of the terms micro and macroevolution. I think it is well explained. To the article I have to add that the big difference between the progressive genetic changes we see as a result of artificial breeding or in the laboratory (and that some call micro evolution) and the progression that leads to the apparition of new species is just a matter of time. Remember that the term "species" is only a biological classification and what difference one from another is the inability to reproduce between them because genetic or morphological differences. Actually species are best define as the group of animals that can interact between them including reproductive success. Just think about the different dog races. There are some of them that could not even reproduce due to obvious morphological impediments even if they could be genetically compatible. I see life as a continuum and evolution acting by modifying gradually the genetic material to an extent that allows the "apparition" of new species. We can see a clear example of this in isolated areas in Australia, the reign of marsupials.

Here is the article:

 

Dear Peter,

The last two days I was thinking on our fruitful discussion about the writings of M. Valtorta on evolution.
I already told you that there were significant and flagrant mistakes made by "Jesus" regarding the process of evolution and the scientific method. I have now also realized that those mistakes are even extended to the most basic biology. Here the example:

Here "Jesus" is talking about mutation in the most negative sense. It appears that mutations can only be degenerative. But this is not the case. In biology we know that there are beneficial mutations and, with the right selection pressure, this actually improves the life of the animal. We have thousands of examples like mutations that change the color or appearance of the animal facilitating to be "invisible" for predators in moths or those involve in protection against the sun radiation that increase the level of melanin and that are lost because of the absence of selective pressure in places where sun radiation is less intense. And so on... Is it possible that this "Jesus" did not know about beneficial mutations? or could it be that MV did not know enough about biology? or what obscure interpretation should we find to try to explain the mistakes in MV' s writings in this case? I think the appeal to the level of science in 1940 is again not a valid argument.

I told you before that I would remain agnostic regarding the divine origin of the locutions experienced by M. Valtorta but I have to reconsider my position. If I see the locutions regarding evolution as not of divine origin I do not why I should consider the rest not to come from the same source. Your approach was somehow opposite to mine: that some of the locutions are just pure inventions or due to the imagination of this woman it does not mean that some of them cannot be divine. Logically and theoretically this is possible, practically I find it very difficult to accept it. This would not be a successful strategy to convince anybody in a criminal trial.

There is only a possibility to believe that some of those locutions are not a product of MV imagination. Apart from the authority argument as a proof (I will come back about it later) you mention that this woman predicted some archaeological findings. Could you, please, provide some of those arguments? If that holds true then I will have to change my mind somehow (there is an explanation why I said "somehow").

Regarding the authority argument, it is interesting to know that the Medjugorje visionaries said that the Virgin supported the writing of MV as coming from God. This, has been oft used by the supporters of MV as an authority argument. But as you already mentioned, this could be a double-edged sword. It can fall down like a card castle or to induce, for some, an undesirable domino effect. If it is shown that the locutions of MV are not of divine origin then...

Waiting for your comments.

 

I would think that if one has divine locutions then they would know the difference between divine and their own reasoning etc..

My sheep know me and I know my sheep. Etc..

My sheep know my voice, they do not listen to another.. Sorry, I know I am not quoting it exactly, being lazy, haven't gone to get the bible. But am sure that you know what I mean.

 

But it is difficult to distinguish a lier from people believing they have locutions from the real mystic having real locutions. A bit like apparitions. At the end one needs some kind of proof that what that person is saying is not pure invention. But for the apparition it looks much easier to discern because, at least in the case of Garabandal or Medjugorje, the fulfillment or not of the event prophesied will be definitive.

And please, please! do not tell me again about the arguments of the good fruits!

 

Ha Ha... I won't say that Jose. And I know that in saying this I am going to open up a whole can of worms. But surely we don't need this discussion again.

I know when I say this people will respond with something different. But she was actually banned. Now I know some are going to say the list has been removed etc.. please.. no more of that.. .. Giving me a headache.

The point I was making was that if some were divine, then they all would have to be as the locutionist would know the voice of God. If some are false then it stands to reason that the locutionist wasn't hearing God's voice at all.
Even if they thought that they were.

My own know my voice.

My priest knows my voice. He gets many in confession. But he still knows when it is me because of my voice. It would be the same with an interior locution. It would resonate with your heart in a totally different way from your other thoughts. If mistakes are made, then it isn't divine.. in my opinion.

 

I've been aware that i've been reading over the terms micro & macro evolution knowing that i ought to read an article to find out what exactly the terms mean, yet putting it off.
Thank you jose for your post, very helpful.


In the same way i've been reading over the term hermeneutics and not really knowing what the word means. The word and its associated grammatical constructs appears regularly in theological articles.

Peter : perhaps you can offer the same assistance and help us get to grip with the term hermeneutics.

 

Mothersuperior7, thank you so much for your answers and the work you've put into finding them. I was really puzzled by this "angel marriage" business ( Sarah was not my question) and now there is a clear picture when and how all this misunderstanding started ( both you and Jon helped a lot with this).

 

I have been doing a bit of research on the alleged archaeological "coincidences" from the writings of MV. Up to now what I see is that every thing is related to "detailed" descriptions that could be coincident with this place or that one in Palestina. One example called my attention: the city called Alexandroscene.

Jean-François Lavère writes in the book "The Maria Valtorta Enigma":

Now if you look in the web for this city you will find some interesting information:

The city is mentioned and mapped in:
1.

2. In this book you can find it again and not only the name, also the exact location ans position of the city as related by Jacques de Vitry (1160-1240) who wrote a History of the Holy Land.

3. Another book in German:

It is often said that MV wrote things that were unknown until "recent excavations" like in this example. This clearly ad undoubtedly shows that there were information already about the position (5 miles from Tyre) and description of this city at least in books dating from 1885, 1903 and 1915.

I think Jean-François Lavère should get better information before publishing his books and spreading false information.

This was not a rigorous search, just some minutes googling...so I wonder if somebody has already tried to check, as I did here for only one city and in 10 minutes, for all these alleged "revealed" places.

A visit to Valtorta's personal library would have been worth.

 

How many other, even currently known species have no fossil record? I bet it is a HUGE number, and a large percentage........
And assumptions of ancestors of species found in the fossil "record", that are conjecture, would not count as any species "found".

 

The same applies to unicorns and dragons.

 

Hello Jose,

Case for the defence here ... J-F Lavère is only saying that Alexandroscene is 'very little known'. I agree that it is technically possible that Maria Valtorta could have read about it if there were published descriptions in existence (although this seems to me extremely improbable given her limited education and even more limited access to research materials as a bedridden paralytic). But that is no proof that she did read these descriptions, so the argument is neither conclusive in favour of JFL or the objectors.

Much stronger evidence concerning the authenticity of the 'Poem of the Man-God' on the basis of archeological research has been adduced by David Webster in a 30-page article which can be downloaded at

http://www.saveourchurch.org/descriptionspoem.pdf

Webster makes a 'hard claim' right at the outset:

The strongest evidence of all, however, is that when Maria Valtorta received her alleged locutions, they were completely out of sequence (as can be seen from the dating). Yes, when finished, they were then assembled like a 500-piece jigsaw puzzle ... making a perfectly coherent narrative. I'll leave the statisticians to calculate the probability of that!!

Will return to the subject of macro- and microevolution later

Peter

 

Way too presumptive. Your teacher, and even great scripture scholars like Scott Hahn (whom I respect tremendously, and learned the most about covenant theology from, following his scripture study called Our Father's Plan), are is simply adopting the view that cops out on having to address the supernatural (which is disappontingly secular in the context of the history of the creation and our exile here). Any scholar has to do backflips to reject the definition of "sons of God" as angels just to avoid the topic. And the Sethite explanation does not fit in the context. It does not add up. Sons of God are angels, angels, angels......

• Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, Satan also came among them (Job 1:6).
• Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan came among them to present himself before the Lord (Job 2:1).
• When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy? (Job 38:7, cf. Psalm 89:6; Daniel 3:25).
• Then King Nebuchadnezzar leaped to his feet in amazement and asked his advisers, “Weren’t there three men that we tied up and threw into the fire?” They replied, “Certainly, Your Majesty.”
  He said, “Look! I see four men walking around in the fire, unbound and unharmed, and the fourth looks like a son of the gods.”
  Nebuchadnezzar then approached the opening of the blazing furnace and shouted, “Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego, servants of the Most High God, come out! Come here!” So Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego came out of the fire, and the satraps, prefects, governors and royal advisers crowded around them. They saw that the fire had not harmed their bodies, nor was a hair of their heads singed; their robes were not scorched, and there was no smell of fire on them.
  Then Nebuchadnezzar said, “Praise be to the God of Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego, who has sent his angel and rescued his servants! (Daniel 3:24-28)

And I think serious scholars who reject this view have to acknowledge the fact that the precise term is clearly defined in Scripture as above, but they reject it in Genesis 6 because they just can't accept the idea on the basis of reason. But, it is most likely true:

• For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to pits of darkness, reserved for judgment; (II Peter 2:4).
• And angels who did not keep their own domain, but abandoned their proper abode, He has kept in eternal bonds under darkness for the judgment of the great day (Jude 6).

And angels are male, and can and did take human form:

• Do not neglect hospitality, because through it some have entertained angels without knowing it. (Hebrews 13:2)
• The homosexual men of Sodom were attracted by the ‘male’ angels who came to the city (Genesis 19:1-5).

Yes. Jesus says this below, but He is referring to obedient Angels in their "proper abode":

• You are mistaken, not understanding the Scriptures, or the power of God. For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven” (Matthew 22:29-30).

Fallen angels, means fallen from their proper estate, and they were those involved in perversion of God's creation by creating of their own will, not God's will, desiring to be worshipped as Gods and fashioning for themselves abominations that God had to wipe out. God wiped them out because they, through their insertion into man's genetics, actually tried to destroy the line of man that the protoevangelium foretold would crush the head of the serpent.